Ulric  Von  Hutten 


An  EiDistle   Conp:rrtulatory 
to   the  Ri?:ht  Reverend 
The  Bisho-Jos   of  the 
E-oiscooal   Court   at   Camden 


^^^V  OF  PR/^ 


'  \  ex 


j^(zy  c/  '  Q^y^'^^^^t^^ 


AN 


EPISTLE  CONGRATULATORY 


C|e  lliult  Jlebereub  C^c 


t.C'l        \£l  • 


ilS^Allf        _/2 


c;  .iSk.  3VE  X3  x:  po" . 


TJLniO   voir   HUTTEIT, 


Tdiicli  not  iiiiiK;  anointed  ami  do  my  piojihets  no  harm 


NEW- YORK  : 
1S53. 


^w^i^ 


AN 


[*     MAR  28  1911 


EPISTLE  CONGRATULATORY 


TO 


Clje  |lig|t  llckrcuir  Clje  ^jis|0p$ 


OF 


;j;p 


AT 


C?  .22^  3VC  33  DE3  XO* . 


FROM 


ULniC  VON  HUTTSIT. 


Touch  not  mine  anointed  and  do  my  prophet  no  harm. 


Your  lot  has  been  one  of  rare  felicity. 

You  are  called,  in  the  good  providence  of  God,  to  be  the  succes- 
sors of  His  apostles,  the  heritors  of  the  mysterious  illumination  which 
flows  down  that  illustrious  line.  It  has  been  your  fortune  to  exem- 
plify the  ultimat'e  development  of  the  life-giving  principle  of  your 
order. 

Distressing  doubts  obscured  to  the  eye  of  flesh  the  Spiritual  graces 
of  your  brother  of  New  Jersey. 

Carnal-minded  laymen  ventured  to  judge  him  by  the  rules  pre- 
vailing among  men  of  this  world. 

Three  Bishops  were  found  wlio  yielded  to  their  importunities,  and 
presented  him  for  trial  by  the  rule  of  vulgar  morals. 

You,  penetrated  with  the  genuine  spirit  of  apostolic  churchman- 
ship,  could  see  nothing  but  "  purity  and  uprightness"  where  they 
saw  crimes ;  and  finding  no  fliult  in  the  man,  you  bade  him  go,  with- 
out day. 

That  is  a  precedent.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  not  soon  nor  easily  to 
be  forgotten.  It  v/ill  settle  for  centuries  the  law  of  your  Church.  It 
will  forever  illustrate  the  morals  of  the  Church  in  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  throws  no  small  light  on  the  relation  between 
episcopal  prerogative  and  episcopal  morals.  It  reveals  some  of  the 
most  recondite  qualities  and  tendencies  of  the  episcopal  order — which 
yet  a  careless  eye  might  overlook,  or  a  cursory  glance  fail  to  catch  or 
comprehend. 

I  pray  your  indulgence  while  I  fix  this  fleeting  light :  and  while 
the  minds  of  men  are  alive  to  the  facts,  endeavor  to  draw  that  in- 
struction your  judgment  is  so  well  calculated  to  afford. 

The  first  act  of  this  memorable  process  was  concluded  at  Burling- 
ton in  the  "year  of  our  Lord  1852. 

There  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  intervened  with  filial  reve- 
rence to  shield  their  spiritual  father  from  the  humiliation  of  trial  on 
a  presentment  supported  only  by  the  oaths  of  laymen.  The  Pre- 
sentees met  that  intervention  not  merely  with  argument,  but  with 


4  CONGRATULATOHY     EPISTLK. 

threats.  Standing  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  Church,  they  there 
declared  that,  "If  under  the  present  motion  the  trial  of  the  respon- 
dent be  dismissed,  our  trial  before  that  tribunal  is  ended.  But  allow 
us  Rif^ht  Rev.  Brethren,  most  affectionately  to  remind  you  that  then, 
your  trial  at  that  great  tribunal  begins." 

That  menace,  though  failing  of  its  immediate  object  to  deter  you 
from  solemnly  maintaining  the  rights  of  Bishops  to  do  what  to  them 
seems  good,  has  at  last  accomplished  its  own  prophecy. 

On  two  trials  you  have  refused  investigation.  You  are  now  on 
trial  before  the  Bar  of  the  Laity  of  the  Church  for  your  conduct  on 
those  trials. 

It  is  feared  that  a  blind  and  perverse  generation  will  try  you  by 
other  than  those  elevated,  refined  and  spiritual  principles  by  which 
alone  your  regenerate  minds  are  regulated ;  and  that  if  they  be  not 
e.xplained,  so  as  to  be  intelligible  to  the  mass  of  mankind,  serious 
damage  may  come  to  your  Holy  order,  and  through  it  to  the  millions 
dependent  on  its  prerogatives  for  their  spiritual  life.  Your  predeces- 
sors have  ever  been  ready  indulgently  to  explain  what  might  be 
beyond  their  unaided  reason ;  and  I^  feel  sure  you  will  gladly  accept 
at  my  hands  an  humble  attempt  to  interpret,  for  their  benefit  and 
your  quiet,  the  high  and  solenm  act  o^ purgation  you  have  performed. 
The  chief  difficulty  lies  in  a  plain  confusion  of  ideas. 
Your  accusers  stumble  at  their  first  step.  They  saw  a  man  ac- 
cused of  grave  acts  of  crime  and  immorality  :  and  they  saw  you 
restore  him  without  a  trial  to  his  holy  functions.  They  accuse  you 
of  beinf^  the  accomplices  of  his  iniquities.  They  gratuitously  assume 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  bishops  and  men. 

They  are  guilty  of  forgetting  the  plain  and  settled  distinction 
between  lay  and  episcopal  morality.  They  expected  you  to  try  a 
Bishop  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  morality  among  men.  You  were 
contemplating  only  an  extraordinary  and  exceptional  rule,  confined  in 
its  application  strictly  to  the  conduct  of  Bishops.  It  is  one  not  bear- 
ino'  the  remotest  relation  to  the  conduct  of  laymen.  Even  Presbyters 
and  Deacons  are  excluded  from  its  benefit. 

Whether  the  pei'son  accused  did  the  acts  specified  {■&  entirely  beside 
the  question.  It  is  utterly  immaterial  that  a  Bishop  is  charged  with 
acts  which  in  a  layman  would  have  been  felony,  perjury,  falsehood, 
cheating,  breaches  of  trust,  living  sumptuously  every  day,  gambling 
speculations  at  other  peoples  risk.  These  things  in  Wall-street  would 
be  iniquities.  They  might  be  of  a  questionable  morality  anywhere — 
but  in  the  person  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  in  him  they 
are  out  of  the  category  of  crimes.     No  one  can  find  in  the  Bible  any 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE.  ^ 

Bishop  held  resp(>nsil:>lo  for  such  acts.  There  is  not  a  single  such  case 
fi'om  the  Ijcgiuniug  to  the  end  of  the  Sacred  Canon. 

It  is  this  great,  simple,  and  fundamental  principle  which  you  have 
been  called  on- to  illustrate  and  establish  in  this  menioralWe  proceod- 
ina — which  has  been  blessed  to  the  contirmatiou  of  the  independence 
of  Bishops,  and  the  drawing  of  the  line  of  demarcation  consecrated 
for  ages  between  the  morals  of  the  layman  and  the  morals  of  the 
priest. 

It  is  to  the  height  of  this  high  argument  I  would  lift  myself. 

To  do  so  effectually,  I  must  beg  your  indulgence  while  1  recall  the 
several  steps  of  this  momentous  process ;  for  the  ti'aces  of  this  pe- 
culiar spiritual  morality  so  pervade  the  simplest  acts  of  this  great 
dranux,  that  serious  loss  will  be  experienced  if  any  of  them  be  passed 
in  silence. 

Even  the  preliminary  proceedings  before  the  Convention  of 
New  Jersey  are  rich  in  instruction,  and  afford  the  most  gratifying 
proof  of  the  entire  security  with  which  a  Bishop  may  rely  on  the  pro- 
tection of  a  Convention  wdiich  he  has  by  the  rod  of  correction  and  the 
voice  of  praise  brought  up  in  the  way  it  should  go. 

Prior  to  the  year  1849  public  rumour,  with  a  thousand  tongues 
no  better  than  they  should  be,  impeached  the  honesty  and  sobriety  of 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey.  A  resolution  of  investigation  was  offered 
and  voted  down  unanimously.  The  Convention  was  penetrated  with 
the  great  principle,  that  sin,  if  secret,  had  better  not  be  exposed  ;  that 
though  a  Bishop  should  be  of  good  report  of  them  that  are  without, 
yet  here  the  report  pi'oceeded  from  those  that  were  within  ;  and  that 
the  Apostle  in  laying  down  that  rule  rather  declared  the  duty  of  them 
that  are  without  not  to  spread  a  bad  report  to  the  prejudice  of  a  holy 
Bishop,  than  indicated  any  quality  of  a  Bishop's  conduct ;  and  that 
the  existence  of  such  reports  w-as  rather  a  reason  for  condemning  the 
authors  for  violating  their  duty  in  spreading  them,  than  for  putting 
the  Bishop  to  the  trouble  of  an  investigation  into  the  truth  of  charges 
of  what  he  could  not  as  a  Bishop  be  guilty. 

These  reasons  were  so  satisfactory,  that  though  the  Bishop  did  not 
suggest,  he  did  not  reject  them ;  and  feeling  his  duty  as  a  Christian 
man  to  live  down  evil  reports,  rather  than  with  a  spirit  of  wordly 
pride  demand  an  investigation  into  his  purity,  he  acquiesced  in  the 
resolution  of  his  Convention,  which  refused  to  treat  the  favor  of  the 
Bishop,  and  the  peace  of  the  Diocese  as  of  such  light  moment,  as  to 
be  jeoparded  liy  such  an  investigation. 

Even  in  this  faithful  body  there  were  one  or  two  members  who 
vohmtecrcd,  in  debate,  assurances  that  an  investigation  would  follow 


6  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE, 

upon  charges  by  responsible  names  ;  but  the  Convention  carefull  j 
refrained  from  entangling  their  feet  in  the  snare  of  any  such  resulu- 
tion. 

Nothing  can  better  illustrate  the  obdurate  perversity  of  the  world 
than  that  this  pleasing  confidence  of  the  Convention  did  not  stop  the 
"wagging  of  the  tongue  of  scandal.  Tliat  Convention  was  filled  with 
the  bosom  friends  of  the  Bishop,  who  must  have  known  him  and  his 
affairs  intimately — with  Missionaries  whose  bread  depended  on  hia 
bountiful  will — with  ci-editors  whose  hopes  of  payment  depended  on 
the  success  of  the  Bishop,  which  was  intimately  bound  up  with  his 
purity  of  character.  Such  a  body,  composed  at  once  of  persons  most 
likely  to  know  the  truth  of  the  rumors,  and  most  interested  in  main- 
taining the  Bishop  in  good  report  without  and  within,  was  entitled  to 
the  greatest  weight.  The  thought  to  investigate  would  only  multiply 
food  for  the  tongue  of  slander ;  they,  therefore,  refused  it.  Yet^ 
strange  to  say,  the  reports  were  doubled,  not  diminished. 

At  the  Convention  of  1850  some  evil-disposed  persons,  suspecting 
the  Bishop  of  having  laid  i 'legal  hands  on  the  coiFers  of  the  Church, 
again  sought  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Diocese  by  a  motion  for  in- 
quiry. But  that  eminently  docile  and  peaceful  body  abruptly  ad- 
journed, to  save  the  Church  the  scandal  of  seeming  to  countenance  so 
monstrous  a  proceeding  by  even  considering  the  proposition.  It  is 
presumed  the  Bishop  was  as  much  surprised  and  bewildered  as  the 
rest  of  the  world  at  this  sudden  adjournment. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  supposing  the  Bishop  to 
have  been  at  all  instrumental  in  evading  this  investigation.  lie  had 
nothing  to  fear  from  it.  "  He  had,"  he  said,  "  found  the  episcopal 
fund  in  one  part  of  God's  vineyard.  He  had  transplanted  it  into 
another  part  of  God's  vineyard.  That  was  all  !"  On  this  transaction 
he  had  nothing  s  rely  to  fear  from  the  investigation  of  a  body  which 
did  not  think  it  worth  investigating. 

The  Convention  of  1851  inherited  the  meek  and  faithful  spirit  of 
their  predecessor  ;  and,  confirmed  by  their  example,  they  were  en- 
abled to  rise  to  the  height  of  the  case  they  were  called  to  deal  with. 

In  the  fall  of  18n0  the  rector  of  St.  I^liohael's  church  had  published, 
with  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  his  vestry,  several  of  the  grossest 
charges  urged  against  the  Bishop. 

Michael  Hayes,  a  creditor  of  the  Bishop,  had  so  far  forgotten  what 
was  due  to  a  consecrated  Bishop  as  to  make  a  solemn  affidavit, 
wherein  he  called  God  to  witness  that  His  servant  had  cheated  him 
feloniously  out  of  some  ten  thousand  dollars  by  false  representations. 
Mr.  Halsted  stood  prepared   to  bring  this  impious  document  before 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE.  1, 

the  Convention ;  and  the  jiamphlct  of  the  Rector  of  St.  Michael's 
would  certainly  have  followed  it. 

Yet,  though  all  this  was  known,  the  Convention  did  not  rush  on 
and  stone  the  rector  and  the  lay  member  charged  with  these  offensive 
topics.  They  only  shut  their  ears  to  them.  On  the  first  day  of  the 
session,  after  Mr.  Halsted  had  retired  for  the  day,  they  suddenly  ad- 
journed, leaving  much  important  business  unattended  to. 

The  delicacy  of  this  proceeding  is  its  most  attractive  feature. 

The  charge  of  Michael  Hayes  was  supported  by  his  oath ;  but 
that  was  only  the  oath  of  a  layman  accusing  a  Bishop  of  a  felony.  It 
was  plain  such  a  charge  must  fail  on  such  evidence — for  how  could 
a  layman's  oath  outweigh  the  consecration  vow  of  a  Bishop  ?  An 
oath  prove  a  fact  against  a  vow  not  to  do  it !  It  impeached  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  grace  of  God  promised  to  His  apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors to  the  end  of  the  world.  It  was  vastly  more  probable  that 
God  should  keep  His  word  than  that  a  layman  should  lie.  The  Con- 
vention, therefore,  considei'ately  spare  Michael  Hayes  the  exposure 
which  the  hearing  of  his  affidavit  would  have  occasioned. 

They  behaved  even  with  more  forbearance  towards  Mr.  Starr,  of 
St.  Michaels.  They  did  not  even  put  him  on  his  trial  for  slander- 
ing his  Bishop,  whom  he  had  vowed  reverently  to  obey. 

They  allowed  him  and  Michael  Hayes  to  go  their  ways  in  peace  ! ! 

The  Bishop  bore  his  trials  with  christian  meekness  and  resigna- 
tion— confident  in  the  protection  of  God — and  his  Convention. 

Such  turning  of  the  other  cheek  to  the  smiter  ought  surely  to  have 
disarmed  the  most  rancorous  malignity.  It  had  no  other  effect  on 
the  obdurate  laymen  than  to  convince  them  that  the  Bishop,  strong 
in  the  affectionate  and  obsequious  devotion  of  his  Convention,  could 
be  effectually  assailed  only  from  without.  They  found  that  children 
would  not  try  their /a^Aer.  They  hoped  to  find  i/'o//ie/-/?/ affection 
less  inexorable. 

They  .turned  from  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey  to  the  three  Bishops 
of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine.  They  invoked  the  canon  of  1844  en- 
titled ''Of  the  trial  of  a  Hishop.'" 

In  an  evil  hour  you,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  consented  to  that  canon  : 
It  is  the  most  serious  blow  ever  dealt  against  the  independence  and 
irresponsibility  of  }our  order.  It  admits  that  you  are  not  inflillible 
either  in  morals  or  in  fliith.  It  implies  that  you  are  not  each  the 
absolute  and  ultimate  judge  of  the  rectitude  of  your  own  act.  It 
impeaches  the  heavenly  origin  of  your  prerogatives.  It  creates 
presumptuous  thoughts  in  the  hearts  of  the  laity.  It  weakens  your 
hold  on  their  submission,  by  teaching  them  to  contemplate  the  possi- 


8  CONGRATULATOUY     EPISTLE. 

bility  of  your  erring,  and  by  tempting  them  into  the  dangerous  heresy 
of  judging  you  by  the  only  rule  known  to  them — the  rule  of  morals 
imbibed  loosely  by  the  unlearned  hxity  from  their  too  exclusive 
study  of  the  Bible.  With  this  canon  and  the  right  of  free  investiga- 
tion— who  can  wonder  at  the  untold  evils  the  Church  and  the  Holy 
Order  has  suifered  by  the  trial  and  degradation  of  the  Bishops  of 
New-York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  the  deplorable  proceedings  against 
Bishop  Doane.  On  this  subject  we  are  not  left  to  our  unaided  reason, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  one  who  knows  from  his  own  experience 
what  it  is  to  sin  and  conceal  it,  and  what  it  is  to  sin  and  be  exposed. 
He  has  feelingly  declared,  touching  the  trial  of  Bishop  Onderdonk  : 
"  I  most  solemnly  believe  that  greater  evils  have  arisen  from  that 
trial  than  could  have  come  if  the  offences  chai'ged  upon  the  Bishop 
of  New- York — had  all  been  true.'''' 

And  again,  in  contrasting  the  Protestant  with  the  Papal  Church, 
he  exclaims :  "  Now  who  has  ever  heard  of  the  trial  of  a  Romish 
Bishop  1  .  .  .  .  When  one  of  the  clergy  of  that  Church  falls  into  open 
and  nulor'ujus  sin,  he  is  sent  off  in  silence  and  solitude  and  sorrow, 
and  the  Church  and  the  world  are  spared  the  scandal  of  his  offences 
and  the  greater  scandal  of  nis  trial." 

You  Right  Reverend  Fathers  only  can  appreciate  the  merit  of 
this  scale  of  morals — so  adverse  to  the  rude  conceptions  of  the  world 
— but  drawing  its  origin  from  a  classic  era  far  beyond  the  Apostolic 
times.  Your  classic  learning  will  instantly  suggest  the  Spartan 
code — which  made  theft  a  virtue  while  concealed,  a  crime  when  dis- 
covered !  !  It  is  clear  that  though  crime  be  bad,  yet  trial  is  worse, 
and  confession  worst  of  all ;  for  the  trial  only  exposes  what  never 
can  be  proved  by  any  human  evidence  against  a  Bishop  :  and  con- 
fession, in  admitting  what  never  could  have  been  proved,  tends  di- 
rectly to  cast  suspicion  on  the  innocence  of  all  Bishops.  It  gives 
the  profane  occasion  to  say.  Oh  !  if  we  could  only  know  the  truth, 
half  of  them  are  no  better  than  they  should  be. 

The  author  of  that  sound  exposition  of  the  evils  of  the  Canon  is 
well  supported  by  the  earliest  history  of  the  Christian  church.  I 
need  only  refer  to  the  notorious  case  of  Callistus,  a  Bishop  of  Rome, 
who  from  having  been  guilty  of  theft,  embezzlement,  and  falsehood, 
was  finally  elected  Bishop,  and  then  proclaimed,  with  a  keen  sense  of 
its  necessity,  that  great  principle,  that  "  if  a  Bishop  commit  sin,  be  it 
even  a  sin  unto  death,  he  must  not  be  deposed  for  all  that." 

Such  was  the  spirit  of  Primitive  Christianity  in  the  Second 
Century !  So  entirely  is  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  attperantiquas 
vias  !  ! 


CONGRATULATOUY      EPISTLE.  \f 

To  this  Canon  then,  the  source  of  so  many  evils,  did  those  hiymen 
appeal  for  the  persecution  of  their  Bishoii. 

The  Three  Bishops  forwarded  to  the  Bi.shop  of  New  Jersey  the 
charges  preferred  by  the  Four  Laymen,  and  gave  him  an  opporluiiity 
to  explain  and  expose  them. 

That  noble  Prelate  repelled,  with  the  spirit  of  a  Ilildebrand,  that 
invasion  of  his  episcopal  prerogatives.  He  denounced  anathemas 
upon  the  "  uncanonical,  unchristian,  and  inhuman  procedure,"  in 
language  which  in  the  moutli  of  any  bat  a  Christian  Bishop  would 
have  been  an  explosion  of  blasphemous  fury,  but  in  him  was  only 
that  Godly  wrath  which  caused  Moses  to  break  the  tables  of  stone  at 
the  idolatry  of  Israel. 

Having  thus  delivered  the  three  Bishops  to  a  tribunal  they  were 
not  likely  to  escape,  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  summoned  his  Con- 
vention specially  "to  consider  and  express  their  judgment  on  tho 
official  conduct  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine,  as  touch- 
ing the  rights  of  the  Bishop  and  the  Diocese,  in  dictating  a  course  to  be 
pursued  by  them."  The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  was  even  then  alivo 
to  the  evils  of  trying  a  Bishop,  and  manifestly  resolved  to  "  do  what 
in  him  lay  to  make  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  hard." 

This  Special  Convention  shared  and  echoed  the  indignation  of  their 
Bishop  at  the  invasion  of  their  rights,  and  roughly  repelled  the  three 
intruders  from  the  Diocese. 

With  that  stern  hostility  the  Bishop  had  always  shown  to  Papal 
pretensions,  the  Convention  united  with  him,  repelling  the  intrusion 
into  the  fold  which  he  "  received  from  Jesus  Christ  "  of  the  Trium- 
viral  Papacy  of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine,  and  in  view  of  the  una- 
nimous vote  of  1840,  and  all  which  had  subsequently  occurred 
touching  these  Bishops,  they  reiterated  the  declaration  of  their  "  entire 
confidence  in  \vis purity  and  uprif/htness,''  and  rcbolved  that  "no  inves- 
tigation was  needed." 

Of  the  wisdom  of  this  resolution  no  reasonable  doubt  can  be  en- 
tertained.  The  only  allowable  purpose  of  inquiry  into  episcopal 
conduct  is  to  exculpate;  and  here  the  investigation  was  more  likely 
to  shake  than  to  confirm  in  the  minds  of  others  that  confidence  in  the 
purity  and  uprightness  of  the  Bishop  which  the  Convention  were  so 
fortunate  as  to  leel. 

It  is  strange  so  simple  a  view  of  the  matter  did  not  strike  and 
convince  the  three  Bishops.  Far  from  acting  on  these  church  prin- 
ciples, they  seem  to  have  been  led  astray  by  the  idea  that  Bishops 
were  to  be  judged  as  olher  men,  were  equally  liable  to  error  and 
crime,  and  that  their  acts  were  to  be  estimated  by  the  ordinary  rules 


10  COHGRATUL ATORV      EPISTLE, 

of  morality  prevailing  among  men.  The  Canon  of  1844  certainly 
seems  to  countenance  this  view,  and  probably  had  no  small  share  in 
their  aberration.  Yet  it  is  probable  the  reason  is  of  a  more  recon- 
dite character,  and  one  calculated  to  shake  our  confidence  in  the  legi- 
timaxjy  of  their  episcopal  pretensions.  It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that 
genuine  successors  of  the  Apostles — on  whom  the  ineffable  graces 
must  have  descended,  and  with  whom  God  has  promised  to  be  to  the 
end  of  the  world  to  preserve  them  from  material  error — could  have 
been  guilty  of  a  misconception  of  the  episcopal  character  and  peroga- 
tives  so  fundamental,  so  vital,  as  to  suppose  them  amenable  to  the 
rules  of  worldly  morality,  or  liable  to  rebuke  or  deposition  by  their 
equals.  I  know  of  no  way  of  explaining  this  curious  fact  consistently 
with  the  infallibility  of  Bishops,  except  by  supposing  that  the  line  of 
consecration  through  which  they  claim  descent  has  at  some  point  been 
broken.  Grave  doubts  it  is  known  were  entertained  as  to  the  full 
efficacy  of  the  episcopal  transmission  of  Apostolic  grace  from  the 
Papal  to  the  English  church ;  and  a  more  recent  and  more  fatal  de- 
fect may  have  intercepted  totally  the  flow  of  Apostolic  grace  and 
unction  to  the  heads  of  the  three  Bishops.  Such  a  supposition  is 
worthy  of  the  gravest  consideration.  It  not  only  relieves  those  ex- 
cellent but  erring  men  from  the  gross  charge  of  violating  their  epis- 
copal duty,  but  it  at  once  relieves  us  from  all  doubts  as  to  the  effica- 
cy of  that  grace,  when  duly  received,  to  preserve  the  recipient  from 
error.  It  enables  us  also  at  once  to  dispose  of,  on  satisfactory  prin- 
ciple, the  otherwise  painful  and  inexplicable  phenomenon  of  the  low 
church  heresy,  which  has  infected  some  who  are  commonly  supposed 
to  be  Bishops. 

These  three  Bishops  having  drawn  up  a  formidable  Presentment 
in  twenty  seven  specifications — containing  grave  charges  of  crime  and 
immorality,  according  to  the  prevailing  notions  of  the  world — laid 
them  before  the  Senior  Bishop.  This  Prelate,  supposing  the  Canon 
was  obligatory,  and  the  accused  liable  to  trial,  appointed  the  trial  for 
the  24th  of  June,  1853,  at  Camden. 

On  the  17th  of  May  the  same  Bishop  gave  notice  to  the  several 
Bishops,  that  "  By  request  of  a  7inmhcr  of  Bishops^  and  "also  of  the 
Coiimel  of  the  Right  Rev.  G.  W.  Doane,"  he  postponed  the  trial  till 
the  7th  of  October. 

Even  this  letter  is  luminous  with  the  peculiar  morality  I  have 
been  endeavoring  to  explain.  It  aifords  us  a  pleasing  occasion  to 
exemplify  our  faith  in  episcopal  plain  dealing,  in  the  face  of  the  most 
depressing  improbabilities.     It  will  again  attract  our  attention. 

This  postponement  was  clearly    not   authorised  by  the    Canon, 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE.  11 

which  gave  the  Senior  Bishop  no  power  over  the  Court  after  the  tiino 
and  place  of  assembling  had  been  appointed. 

The  Court  failed  to  meet  on  the  24th  of  June ;  it  could  not  therefore 
meet  at  all  for  the  trial  of  the  Hrst  presentment.  Its  proceedings  would 
have  been  in  the  language  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  "  irregular, 
null,  void,  and  of  no  consequence."  It  would  have  been  a  defect  of 
jurisdiction  which  no  consent  can  cure,  as  every  lawyer  knows. 

The  Three  Presenters  were  advised  of  the  difficulty,  and  instead 
of  seizing  the  opportunity  of  withdrawing  from  the  contest,  renewed 
the  Presentment,  with  additional  charges. 

On  this  Presentment  the  Senior  Bishop  summoned  the  Court  for 
its  trial  on  the  7th  of  Octobei",  the  day  to  which  he  had  assumed  the 
right  of  previously  adjourning  the  former  Court. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  met  the  Court  and  the  accusers  on  the 
appointed  day — the  latter  with  bold  defiance — the  former  with  easy 
and  familiar  cordiality. 

"  Given  to  hospitality,"  according  to  the  apostolic  injunction,  he' 
tendered  his  judges  the  hospitalities  of  Burlington.  The  law  would 
have  called  this  by  the  rude  name  of  "  embracery  "  if  tendered  to  a 
jr.ry  ;  but  the  bond  of  episcopal  brotherhood  is  so  strong  that  such  an 
innocent  act  could  add  nothing  to  their  inclination  to  acquit  him.  It 
is  therefore  beyond  the  reason  which  in  civil  mattei's  would  cause  it 
to  be  reprobated. 

Many  of  you.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  took  this  view  of  it,  and  inno- 
cently accepted  the  innocent  hospitality — as  Lord  Bacon  accepted 
bribes — to  do  right.  It  is  well  known  that  his  opinion  was  never 
influenced  by  those  testimonials  of  regard  from  the  suitors  of  his 
Court,  which  have  been  so  uncharitably  misconstrued. 

At  Burlington  the  Presenters  declared  themselves  ready  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  trial — the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  that  he  w'as  ready  to 
hear  the  Presentment. 

It  was  accordingly  read.  Then  followed  one  of  those  steps  which 
is  most  difficult  to  be  comprehended  by  jurists  of  the  civil  law,  but 
which  the  slightest  knowledge  of  the  principles  and  purposes  of  eccle- 
siastical procedure  renders  intelligible. 

A  communication  from  a  committeee  of  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey  had  been  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Court,  concluding  with  the 
empha tic  declaration — 

"  The  Convention  of  New  Jersey  asks  to  be  heard." 

The  Convention  of  New  Jersey  was  not  on  trial ;  the  Canon 
seems  to  be  silent  as  to  any  one's  being  heard  but  the  accusers  and 
the  accused  ;  yet  the  Bishop  of  Indiana  moved  that  the  committee  be 
admitted. 


12  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE. 

Here  there  are  two  notable  departures  from  the  ordinary  course 
of  judicial  proceedings.  A  body  not  a  party  to  the  proceedings  is 
allowed  to  be  heard  :  and  the  motion  is  made  not  by  any  party  to  the 
suit,  but  by  a  member  of  the  Court.  The  invariable  rule  in  civil 
proceedings  is,  that  none  but  parties  can  be  heard,  and  none  but  par- 
ties can  make  motions ;  and  that  the  Court  is  absolutely  passive,  and 
does  nothing  but  at  the  instance  of  ihe  parties. 

The  cause  of  this  difference  is,  that  in  civil  tribunals  the  purpose 
is  to  administer  justice  without  fear,  favor,  or  affection,  according 
to  lato. 

In  ecclesiastical  tribunals  the  purpose  is  to  save  the  Church,  al- 
ready scandalized  by  the  crimes  of  a  Bishop,  the  "greater  scandal  of  a 
trial."  The  Bishops  are  responsible  for  the  reputation  of  the  Church  ; 
they  must,  therefore,  have  the  right  of  initiating  motions  to  prevent 
imprudent  exposures.  The  Committee  of  New  Jersey  came  to  assure 
the  Court  of  the  innocence  of  the  Bishop,  and  thus  to  exempt  the 
Court  from  the  necessity  of  investigating  that  point  for  themselves. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  admissif)n  of  the  committee  was  es- 
sential to  the  attainment  of  the  objects  of  the  Court.  They  were, 
therefore,  admitted. 

They  were  admitted  on  the  motion  of  a  member  of  the  Court — 
because  in  that  mode  only  could  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  be  kept 
free  from  implication  with  them.  He  might  have  been  charged  by  a 
malicious  world  with  shrinking  from  an  investigation  of  his  conduct. 
Indeed  suggestions  to  that  etFect  had  already  been  made.  But  he 
could  not  be  supposed  to  influence  his  Convention  in  the  assertion  of 
the  right  to  have  their  Bishop  unmolested  by  trial.  Accordingly 
Bishop  Doane,  during  the  whole  progress  of  the  Court  at  Burlington, 
does  not  appear  on  the  record  ever  to  have  made  any  motion  on  his 
own  behalf  His  Convention,  with  disinterested  affection,  step  in  to  de- 
fend him  as  his  next  friend :  and  he  In  their  absence  reciprocated  their 
devotion,  and  defended  them  as  their  next  friend.  It  was  a  friendly 
proceeding  throughout.  The  Diocese  of  New  Jei'sey  was  never  for 
a  moment  subjected  to  the  scandal  and  mortification  of  seeing  Its 
Bishop  standing  before  the  bar  of  his  Peers  in  the  anomalous  character 
of  one  accused  of  crimes  and  immoralities. 

A  difficulty  still  remains — the  Canon  of  1844  did  not  provide  for 
this  intervention. 

So  imperfect  are  its  provisions  that,  if  strictly  followed,  the  trial 
of  a  Bishop  once  presented  is  absolutely  Inevitable.  Its  provisions 
seem  drawn  with  that  express  view.  Its  authors  seem  never  to  have 
coittemplatcd   any  other  method  of  disposing  of  a  presentment  tlian 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLK.  13 

by  the  scandal  of  a  trial.  They  seem  entirely  to  have  forgotten  th^ 
rights  and  interest  of  a  Diocese  in  its  Bishop.  And  but  fur  the 
fertile  principle  of  the  inherent  original  and  universal  jurisdiction  of 
Bishops,  great  evils  must  have  followed  on  this  presentment.  The 
Church  must  have  had  another  living  scandal,  of  an  unlawned 
Bishop  added  to  the  painful  cases  of  New-York  and  Pennsylvania. 
Thanks  however  to  that  deep  fountain  of  power,  and  to  the  courage 
of  those  -who  did  not  fear  to  draw  from  it,  that  dancer  was 
evaded. 

A  brief  exposition  of  the  Canon,  on  principles  of  human  reason, 
will  illustrate  and  vindicate  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  the  ori- 
ginal, but    long  dormant,  sovereign   prerogative  of  the  Bishops. 

The  2nd  Section  of  the  Canon,  after  describing  two  modes  of 
making  the  presentment,  declares  that 

"  Upon  a  presentment  made  in  either  of  the  modes  pointed  out 
in  Section  I.  of  this  Canon,  the  course  of  proceeding  shall  be  as 
follows  .•" 

Then  what  follows  1 — Why  nothing  but  these  steps. 

1.  The  presiding  Bishop  shall  cause  a  copy  of  the  presentment 
to  be  served  on  the  accused. 

2.  He  shall  give  notice  to  the  Bishops  to  meet  at  a  time  and  place 
designated — any  seven  of  whom  are  declared  a  Court — "/o?-  the  trial 
oj  the  accused." 

3.  He  is  to  give  30  days  notice  to  the  presenters  and  the 
accused. 

4.  He  is  to  call  on  the  accused  by  a  written  summons  to  appear 
and  answer. 

5.  If  the  accused  appear,  the  Court  before  proceeding  to  trial  is 
to  call  on  him  to  say,  whether  he  be  guilty  or  not  guilty. 

6.  If  he  neglect  or  refuse  to  plead,  the  Court  shall  enter  the  plea 
of  not  guilty,  and  the  (rial  shall  proceed. 

Now  in  this  case  a  presentment  had  been  made  ;  and  itpon  it  the 
Canon  set  down  each  step  of  the  proceeding.  The  Bishops  were 
then  to  be  summoned  :  and  they  had  been.  Any  seven  meeting  were 
to  be  a  Court  for  the  trial  of  the  accused  ;  and  fourteen  Bishops  had 
assembled  :  they  therefore  were  a  Court  for  the  tri'.d  of  the  Bishop,  and 
for  nothing  else.  The  notices  to  the  presenters  and  the  accused  had 
been  given ;  and  both  were  present  in  Court.  Having  then  met — 
according  to  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  the  accused,  and  for  nothing 
else ;  and  having  no  other  power  given  to  them,  the  Court  had  nothing 
to  do,  according  to  the  Canon,  but  to  require  the  party  to  plead  guiltj 


14  CONGRATULATORY      EFISTLE. 

or  not  guilty.    But  here  the  Court  stopped — for  to  plead  was  useless, 
except  with  a  view  to  a  trial. 

It  is  therefore  clear,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  had  you  follow- 
ed the  Canon  you  would  have  been  driven  to  a  trial  of  the  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey.  It  was  a  clear  case  of  gross  carelessness  to  draw  a 
Canon  so  strictly  that  it  could  not  he  followed  without  entailing  on 
the  Church  greater  evils,  by  following,  than  by  disregarding  it.  If 
ever  there  was  a  case  where  the  original  power  of  the  Bishops  might 
be  invoked,  this  was  the  case.  You  resolved  to  do  your  duty  to  your 
Brother — in  spite  of  the  law.  Instead  of  calling  on  the  Bishop  to 
answer^  you  resolved  to  admit  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  to 
produce  their  proceedings  for  the  '''•purgation'''  of  their  Bishop. 

Those  proceedings  were  justly  entitled  to  your  gravest  consi- 
deration. 

They  consisted  of  an  elaborate  investigation,  instituted  for  the 
establishment  of  the  purity  and  vpriglitness  of  the  Bishop — corro- 
borated by  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  most  profound  principles  of  the 
ecclesiastical  law. 

Those  proceedings  showed — to  the  confusion  of  the  Presenters — 
that 

"  The  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  the  grand  inquest  of  the  Church 
therein,"  had  "  passed  upon  these  charges  :  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  and 
true  allegiance  to  His  Church,  declared  there  was  no  ground  for  a 
presentment." 

The  Convention  began  the  investigation  with  such  confidence  in 
the  integrity  of  the  Bishop,  as  to  have  justified  them  in  refusing  it. 

They  examined  all  the  witnesses  in  his  favor;  and  so  deep  and 
abiding  was  the  C'Jise  they  made  out,  that  they  did  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  examine  those  relied  on  against  him. 

On  the  strength  of  this  investigation,  the  Convention  resolved, 

"  That  the  result  of  the  investigation,  and  the  evidence  now  laid 
before  the  Convention,  reneiv  and  strengthen  the  confidence  heretofore 
expressed  in  the  integrity  of  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  and  in  our 
opinion^  fully  exculpate  him  from  any  charges  of  crime  or  immorality 
made  against  him." 

It  was  this  opinion  of  his  integrity,  and  this  evidence  in  support  of 
that  opinion  that  the  committee  were  instructed  to  lay  before  the 
Court,  accompanied  by  a  written  repi-esentation  of  the  "  legal  and 
canonical  rights  "  of  the  Convention,  and  an  earnest  request  to  consi- 
der whether  it  were  "  wise  or  just,  or  for  the  peace  of  God's  Church, 
to  proceed  further  upon  the  charges  laid  before  them." 

The  committee  was  resplendent  in  judicial,  legal,  clerical  and  lay 
dignity  and  ability. 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE.  15 

Their  "  written  representation  "  enforced  the  mornl  and  legal 
weight  and  efficacy  of  the  opinion  and  evidence  of  the  Convention, 
with  great  originality  of  argument  and  boldness  of  view.  A  brief 
statement  of  its  most  striking  points  will  be  the  best  vindication  of 
the  judgment  you  based  on  it. 

They  said — 

"The  law  has  clothed  us  with  the  right  of  presentment,  and  en- 
trusted us  wkh  the  duty  of  performing  it.  We  have  exercised  this 
right,  and  we  have  performed  the  dutij,''''  i.  e.  by  not  presenting. 

"  In  our  judgment,  it  is  the  obvious  intention  of  the  Canon  to 
make  the  Convention  the  leading  and  controling  Presenting  Power. 
For  weighty  reasons,  the  Diocese  is  placed  between  its  Bishop  and 
the  bar  of  this  Court.  The  way  to  the  trial  is  through  the  Convention, 
True,  there  is  another  path  to  this  Court  pointed  out  in  the  Canon,  de- 
signed, it  may  be,  for  cases  of  heresy  ;  but  it  is  on  all  sides  confessed 
that  it  should  only  be  taken  from  necessity.  The  plainly  marked 
cause  pointed  out  by  the  law,  most  clearly  indicate  which  of  these 
two  ways  of  trial  should  have  the  preference  in  the  first  instance." 

This  bold  committee,  by  this  assertion  of  the  prior  right  of  the 
Convention  to  present,  strike  out  all  right  in  the  three  Bishops,  and 
thus  at  once  make  an  end  of  the  case.  For  if  the  Convention  have 
the  2^'>'ior  right,  the  three  Bishops  can  never  present  before  the  Con- 
vention have  acted.  But  if  they  act,  they  must  either  present  or 
refuse  to  present — which  the  coinmittee  had  already  demonstrated  to 
be  the  same  thing.  If  the  Convention  present,  that  excludes  the  three 
Bishops  by  the  rule  that  the  one  of  two  concurrent  powers  first  pre- 
senting, excludes  the  other.  If  they  refuse  to  present,  then  the  three 
Bishops  are  ecpially  precluded  by  that  very  refusal.  It  was  just  such 
a  refusal  which  the  Convention  were  pressing  as  a  bar  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Court.  Even  if  the  Convention  had  done  nothing,  yet 
their  prior  right  would  prevent  the  three  Bishops  doing  anything 
before  the  Convention  had  done  something. 

Thus  successfully  did  the  logic  of  the  Committee  destroy  the  right 
of  the  three  Bishops,  on  which  the  whole  proceeding  rested.  So  im- 
possible is  it  for  the  plainest  words  to  escape  the  penetrating  re- 
searches of  ecclesiastical  jurists. 

Confident  in  the  stability  of  that  argument,  they  lightly  pass  over 
the  suggestion  that  the  prior  present7nent  of  the  three  Bishops  ex- 
cluded them:  for  they  had  demonstated  its  irregularity  whether  before 
or  after  their  proceeding. 

They  follow  up  this  reasoning  by  a  novel  and  powerful  applica- 
tion of  an  imdoubted  and  universal  principle  of  jurisprudence. 


16  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE. 

They  say : 

"  Wo  believe  that  presentments  and  indictments  are  intended  for 
the  (juUtij  and  not  far  the  innocent." 

IIow  striking  !  How  new  !  How  conclusive  !  Wlio  ever  heard  of 
any  law  intended  for  the  indictment  of  an  innocent  man?  The  history 
of  no  jurisprudence  presents  such  an  anomaly.  Indictments  and 
presentments  under  this  Canon  must  have  been  intended  for  the 
guilty  only.  In  order  therefore  to  ascertain  whether  th^  presentment 
lay  ill  this  case  against  Bishop  Doane,  it  was  plainly  necessary  for 
the  Court,  before  proceeding  to  try  him,  to  satisfy  themselves  of  hit 
guilt:  for  if  he  were  innocent,  then  clearly  the  Canon  did  not  subject 
him  to  presentment  or  trial. 

The  Convention  had  thus  providently  anticipated  the  difficulty  of 
the  Court,  which  might  have  been  puzzled  how  to  find  out  his  guilt  or 
innocence  without  a  trial,  on  which  however  the  right  to  try  him  rest- 
ed. The  Convention  did  not  try  him,  but  they  inrestigaied  his  inno- 
cence, and  then  hastened  to  the  bar  of  the  Court,  with  the  results  of  the 
investigation,  to  assure  the  Court  that  their  Bishop  was  an  innocent, 
not  a  guilty  man — therefore  not  the  subject  of  a  presentment  or  of 
a  trial. 

Thus  the  Convention  interposed  their  opinion  of  his  innocence, 
and  their  belief  of  the  truth  of  the  evidence  taken  before  them,  to  sa- 
tisfy the  Court  of  Bishops  of  the  purity  of  their  Bishop.  That  object 
once  attained,  a  trial  become  not  merely  a  scandal,  worse  than  the 
crime,  but  an  iniquity  without  a  shadow  of  excuse. 

The  moral  weight  of  tins  investigation  was  entitled  to  great  respect. 

It  was  undertaken  with  the  purest  desire  to  find  the  Bishop  inno- 
cent. It  was  decided  by  a  Convention  already  convinced  of  his 
"  purity  and  uprightness."  It  was  conducted  by  a  Committee  of  the 
mystical  number  of  seven — a  majority  of  whom  were  creditoi's  of  the 
Bishop  or  trustees  of  his  institutions,  or  both  creditors  and  trustees  at 
once,  all  of  whom  were  his  personal  and  devoted  friends,  and  the 
Chairman  of  whom  was  already  implicated  in  the  Bishops  connexion 
with  the  episcopal  fund.  It  was  conducted  quietly,  coolly  away  from 
the  bustle  and  heat  of  a  contested  cause,  in  the  presence  of  the 
accused,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  accusers,  whose  presence  would 
only  have  obscured  and  complicated  the  beautiful  simplicity  of  the 
result.  The  witnesses,  by  their  absence,  were  freed  from  the  terrors 
of  cross-examination — so  fatal  to  clearness,  fullness  and  fairness  of 
statement.  So  studiously  was  their  absence  contrived,  that  the  notice 
of  investigation  was  not  sent  to  them,  but  to  certain  lay  gentlemen 
of  New  Jersey,  not  entitled  at  all  to  represent  them.  With  such  skill 


CONOR ATULATOUV      K  P  1  S T L E  .  17 

were  the  examinations  conducted,  that  throughout  that  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, so  uniform  is  the  tone  and  so  consistent  the  coloring  of  every 
transaction,  that  the  unity  of  truth  is  hardly  diversified  by  those  cir- 
cumstantial variations  in  the  midst  of  substantial  agreement  which 
Paley  pronounces  the  characteristic  of  honest  human  testimony. 

This  proceeding  ought  surely  to  have  satisfied  the  most  skeptical 
of  the  innocence  of  the  Bishop.  It  was  the  precise  course  pursued 
under  the  Canon  law  in  England  when  a  clergyman  was  convicted  by 
the  civil  tribunals,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  his  innocence  ;  and 
if  there  it  was  considered  to  outweigh  the  actual  verdict  of  twelve 
laymen,  surely  here  it  should  put  to  shame  an  accusation  resting  only 
on  the  irresponsible  oaths  of  four. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the  learned  jurists  who  prepared 
the  "  written  representation  "  of  the  canonical  rights  of  the  Conven- 
tion, should  not  have  furnished  the  Court  Avith  the  pertinent  passages 
which  abound  in  the  venerable  masters  of  the  old  law,  touching  this 
'process  for  clerical  purgation. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  supply  that  omission,  while  I  support  by  a 
strong  precedent  the  judgment  of  the  Court.  Thus  says  a  venerable 
legal  author  : — - 

"  The  real  clergy  were  discharged  from  the  sentence  of  the  law 
'in  the  King's  Court,  and  delivered  over  to  the  ordinary,  to  be  dealt 
with  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  canons. 

"  Whereupon  the  ordinary,  not  satisfied  with  the  proofs  adduced 
in  the  profane  secular  Court,  set  himself  formally  to  work  to  make  a 
^mrgation  of  the  offender  by  a  new  canonical  trial ;  although  he  had 
been  personally  convicted  by  his  country,  or  perhaps  by  his  otvn  con- 
fession. This  trial  was  held  before  the  Bishop  in  person,  or  his  deputy, 
and  by  a  jury  of  twelve  clerks;  and  there  first  the  party  hirtiself  was 
required  to  make  oath  of  his  own  innocence ;  next,  there  was  to  be 
the  oath  of  twelve  compurgators,  who  swore  they  believed  he  spoke  the 
'  tnith;  then,  witnesses  were  to  be  examined  on  oath,  but  on  behalf  of 
the  prisoner  onhj  ;  and  lastly,  the  jury  were  to  bring  in  their  verdict 
'on  oath,  Avhich  usually  acquitted  the  prisoner  ;  otherwise,  if  a  clerk  he 
was  degraded  or  put  to  penance.  A  learned  judge  in  the  beginning 
of  the  last  century  remarks,  with  much  indignation,  the  vast  complica- 
tion of  perjury  and  subornation  of  perjury  in  this  solemn  farce  of  a 
mock  trial;  the  witnesses,  the  compurgators,  and  the  jury,  being  all 
of  them  partakers  in  the  guilt ;  the  delinquent  party  also,  though 
convicted  before  on  the  clearest  evidence,  and  conscious  of  his  own 
offence,  yet  was  permitted  and  almost  compelled  to  swear  him- 
'self  not  guilty  ;  nor  was  the  good  bishop  himself  under  whose  coun- 

2 


18  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLK. 

tcnance  this  scene  of  wiekecliiess  \vas  flaily  transacted,  by  any  means 
exempt  from  a  share  of  it.  Axd  yet  b;/  this  piirc/alion  the  party  tvas 
restored  to  hU  liberty^  his  landa,  and  his  capacity  of  purchasing  afresh^ 
was  entirely  wade  a  new  and  innocent  man  IP'' 

Another  venerable  judge,  speaking  of  the  statute  of  Elizabeth, 
■\vhicli  ''  for  avoiding  sundry  jjerjitries  and  other  abuses  in  and  about 
clerks  convict,''''  abolished  those  "purgations,"  says: 

"The  perjuries  were  indeed  sundry  ;  one  in  the  witnesses  and  com- 
piiryators,  another  in  the  jury  composed  of  clerks  and  laymen,  and  of 
the  third,  the  judge  himself  was  not  clear,  all  turning  the  solemn  trial 
of  truth  by  oath  into  a,  ceremonious  oath  and  formal  lie." 

You,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  will  pardon  my  quoting  the  language  of 
these  venerable  but  irreverent  men  for  the  sake  of  their  solemn  attes- 
tation of  the  rule  of  the  Canc)n  law.  You  will  not  accuse  me  of  adopt- 
ing the  langnage  I  quote.  Our  judges  arc  too  apt  to  catch  a  bad 
habit  of  calling  things  by  ugly  names,  from  their  constant  familiarity 
with  the  hard  language  of  the  law.  We  can  only  apologise  for  them 
as  Philip  did  to  the  Athenian  ambassador  who  complained  that  his 
soldiers  called  them  traitors,  only  because  they  had  received  money 
from  Mm — Ah !  these  Macedonians  of  mine  are  very  plain  men — thetj 
will  call  a  spade  a  spade  !  ! 

I  quote  this  precedent  to  shmv  how  entirely  the  Convention  were 
within  the  line  of  ancient  precedents;  and  to  illustrate  how  the  whole 
clerical  order  is  penetrated  by  the  same  spirit  which  spontaneously 
suggests  similar  means  for  the  attainment  of  similar  ends  from  age 
to  age. 

Here,  though  the  Bi  hop  was  the  party  to  be  purged,  he  presided 
or  sat  in  the  Convention  which  resolved  his  innocence.  He  was  not, 
it  is  true,  required  to  swear  to  his  innocence,  but  it  is  presumed  no 
difficulty  would  have  been  felt,  "under  legal  advice;"  and  its  place  in 
the  proceeding  was  supplied  by  his  reiterated  asseverations.  The  rule 
that  witnesses  were  to  be  examined  only  in  fovor  of  the  accused  was 
rigidly  adhered  to,  and  most  of  them  performed  the  double  duty  of 
•witnesses  and  compurgators,  attesting — not  facts,  but — their  belief  in 
the  Bis'iop^s  assertion  of  his  innocence.  The  committee  was  composed 
like  the  jury,  of  clerks  and  laymen,  following  the  scriptural  number 
of  seven  rather  than  twelve;  and  the  proceeding  had  the  usual  result 
of  a  purgation,  in  a  "  verdict  of  acqnitlal'''' 

To  the  arguments  of  the  Committee  the  presenting  Bishops  could 
oppose  nothing — but  the  express  words  of  the  Canon  giving  them  a 
co-equal  right  to  present  with  the  Convention — ihey  relied  with  great 
but  futile  confidence  on  the  analogies  of  the  Civil  Law  to  show  that 


CONGRATULATOIty      EPISTLE.  19 

the  Convention  was  merely  an  inquest  or  grand  jury,  whose  refusal 
to  put  the  Bishop  on  trial  bound  no  one — not  even  tliemselvts — that 
the  iuvestigation  had  no  quality  of  a  trial  in  Law,  and  was  worth 
little  as  an  impartial  searcli  for  truth  in  morals, — and  that  the  Con- 
vention, not  having  two  thirds  of  both  orders,  was  by  the  words  of 
the  Canon  and  the  principles  of  Civil  Law  not  even  competent  to 
consider  the  question  of  presentment — but  that  every  thing  it  did 
was  by  a  body  having  no  jurisdiclton,  and  so  "null  and  void,  and  qf 
no  consequence." 

But  all  these  arguments  were  on  the  supposition  that  the  Courfc. 
of  Bishops  were  bound  by  the  words  of  the  Canon^  and  had  no  para- 
mount power  independentlij  of  its  provision;  and  that  a  Court  of 
Bishops  is  bound  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  legal  procedure  and 
analogy. 

The  Bishop  put  these  things  in  a  strong  light  in  his  reply  as 
*'■  next  friend''^  of  the  Convention.  He  spoke  under  a  deep  sense  of 
his  obligation  to  defend  a  body  which  had  so  vigorously  defended 
fcim :  and  he  reveals  a  curious  scale  of  christian  morals  when  he  says, 

"  I  am.  bound  by  the  most  sacred  duty  to  stand  by  the  Con- 
vention .... 

'■'■J  should  be  guiltij^  if  I  did  not — of  a  blacker  crime  than  I  am 
yet  accused  of''  How  mysterious  must  be  the  relation  between  the 
Bishop  and  the  Diocese — that  spiritual  marriage — to  be  faithless  to 
which  is  worse  than  cheating,  drunkenness,  and  perjury  ! 

Under  this  solemn  responsibility  he  assails  the  argument  of  the 
Presenters  with  spiritual  weapons,  which  derive  much  importance 
from  their  apparent  adoption  by  the  Court.  He  stood — not  as  a 
criminal  before  his  judges — but  the  defender  of  his  absent  defenders 
from  the  calumnies  and  malice  of  their  common  foe.  He  spoke  sl^ 
one  having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes,  on  whom  the  Presenters 
depended.  He  drew  his  resource  directly  from  inspiration — and  set 
himself  and  the  Court  clear  from  all  responsibility  to  human  reason. 

"  I  pass  to  the  legal  argument  ....  it  lives  on  analogies.  It  has 
no  other  hold  upon  the  case.  Now  analogies  are  good  for  illustra- 
tion: may  be  taken  in  to  help  out  an  unvttered  thought  (qu.  the  priority 
of  the  Convention?)  ....  They  are,  like  the  Court,  of  counsel  always 
for  the  defendant.  But  after  all — there  are  no  analogies,  there  can  be 
no  analogies  between  this  Court  and  any  Court  whatever  called,  of 
civil  or  of  criminal  jurisdiction.  Where  is  the  other  Court  whose 
judges  hold  from  Jesus  Christ? — Where  is  the  other  Court  whose 
judges  administer  judgment  only  as  an  incident  to  (heir  great  work  as 
rulers?  .  .  .  Where  is  the  other  Court  in  which  the  legislative  and 


30  CONGRATULATORY      E  1'  I  S  T  L  E  , 

e.recufivc  combine  roiih  the  Judicial?  It  is  an  element  of  our  rcpublicair 
institutions  that  these  three  must  not  be  united  in  one  person.  You 
dare  not  throw  yourself  on  this  construction  of  your  office.  It  would 
be  (reason  to  your  trust.  You  would  be  traitors  to  your  Lord.  You 
stand  alone.     There  can  be  no  analogies  to  reach  your  case." 

This  at  once  and  for  ever  puts  an  end  to  the  flimsy  attempt  of  the 
I^resenters  to  restrain  the  powers  of  the  Bishops  by  any  rules  of 
juridicial  proceeding. 

Oni'8  emancipated  from  analogy,  he  expatiates  on  the  inherent 
rights  of  this  Court. 

"  Was  there  ever  a  Court  for  the  trial  of  offences  heard  of  upon 
earth  that  had  no  prerorjative  of  inter 2yosition  .  ,  .  that  could  not  dis- 
miss an  accusation  1  .  ,  .  And  can  a  Court  of  Christ's  Church  be 
defective  in  a  power  so  obviously  inherent  in  the  very  nature  of  a- 
Court  ?  Can  a  Court  of  Bishojis  with  their  powers  and  rir/hts  above 
all  Canons  and  beyond  thein,  be  ivithout  it?  A  Court  of  Bishops,' 
most  especially,  from  which  there  is  provided  no  appeal  whatever  ? 
And  this  most  sovereign  power,  and  this  most  sacred  riglit,  be  lost  to 
such  a  Court  by  mere  omissimi — in  a  Canon  which  yives  them  no 
authority  ivhatever,  and  claims  but  to  direct  them !  !  " — 

This  argument  surely  leaves  little  to  be  said  in  reply.  Hit  pro 
ratione  voluntas  ! ! 

Under  its  influence,  you  took  into  your  consideration  the  judgment 
to  be  given. 

The  Bishop  of  Indiana — renewing  the  order  proposed  by  the 
Bishop  of  Michigan.  m,oved  that 

Whereas  previous  to  the  making  of  the  presentment  now  before 
this  Court,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  had  investigated  most  of 
the  matters  contained  therein,  and  had  determined  tliat  there  was  no 
ground  for  presentment,  therefore 

Resolved,  that  as  to  the  matters  thus  acted  upon  by  said  Conven 
tlon,  this  Court  is  not  called  upon  to  proceed  further  : 

Whereas  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  stands  pledged  to  investigate 
any  charges  against  its  Bishop  that  may  be  presented  from  any 
responsible  source,  and  whereas  a  special  Convention  has  been  called 
shortly  to  meet  in  reference  to  the  new  matters  contained  in  the  pre- 
sentment now  before  this  Court ;  therefore 

•  Resolved  that  this  Court,  relying  on  the  said  pledge,  do  not  now 
proceed  to  any  further  action  in  the  premises. 

Tlic  order  is  awkwardly  worded.     It  should  have  been — 

Whereas  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  has  caused  puliation  to  be 
made  as  to  most  of  the  charges  in  the  presentment,  and  has  promised. 


CONGRATULATORY      EPXSTLK,  21 

to  have  like  purgaLiou  made  as  to  the  residue  thereof. — Upou  con- 
sideration thereof  and  tliat  thereby  the  said  Bishop  is  innocent  of 
said  charges — and  that  presentments  are  for  the  guilty  only — 

It  is  ordered  that  he  go  without  day. 

The  order  had  been  moved  by  the  Bishop  of  INIichigan,  but  with- 
drawn, because  it  was  based  on  the  postponement  and  consequent  tliilure 
of  the  Court  first  summoned,  which  he  was  instrumental  in  procuring. 

The  withdrawal  indicates  a  lurking  consciousness  of  something 
wrong. 

On  the  refusal  of  the  Bishops  at  New  York  to  ask  a  postpone- 
ment for  the  convenience  of  the  delegates  to  England,  Bishop  Mo 
Coskry  visited  the  presiding  Bishop,  and  in  consequence  of  what  there 
passed  the  postponement  was  ordered. 

The  Bishop  of  Michigan  reduces  his  share  in  the  transaction  to  a 
very  small  one. 

He  states  his  whole  agency. 

"This  was  simply  to  present  the  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the 
counsel  of  Bishop  Doane  to  the  presiding  Bishop.  The  whole  matter 
was  left  to  his  discretion.  lu  the  application  made  hy  the  counsel, 
there  was  a  distinct  and  positive  declaration  made,  that  whatever 
doubt  might  exist  as  to  the  power  of  the  Presiding  Bishop,  no  advan- 
tage would   be  taken  by  him  or  Bishop   Doane." 

Yet  the  Presiding  Bishop  orders  the  postponement 

"  By  request  of  a  Number  of  Bishops,  &c.  and  also  of  the  Counsel 
of  the  Eight  Reverend  G.  W.  Doane." 

The  discrepancy  between  the  application  and  the  grant  is  certainly 
singular.  We  must  all  admire  the  extreme  delicacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Michigan,  who  for  so  small  and  innocent  a  share  in  the  postpone- 
ment, shrinks  from  moving  to  take  advantage  of  it;  but  his  voting 
for  the  motion  perplexes  us  by  the  refined  discrimination  it  implies 
between  moving  and  voting  for  a  motion.  But  the  difficulty  arises 
from  looking  at  the  transaction  from  the  point  of  view  of  vulgar 
morality.  Regarded  from  the  episcopal  point,  and  read  by  the  ana- 
logy of  the  dealing  with  Mr.  Binney's  name  after  his  refusal  to  give 
it,  by  Bishop  Doane — wdiich  has  since  received  the  sanction  of  your 
Right  Rev.  Bench — the  difficulty  vanishes.  It  is  not  irreverent  to  sug- 
gest that  the  Bishop  of  Michigan  hinting  at  the  anxiety  of  the  Bishops 
to  be  represented  in  England,  as  attested  by  his  appointment,  and 
using  the  episcopal  "  we  "  to  communicate  his  own  application  for  a 
postponement,  left  the  senior  Bishop  to  apply  it  to  as  many  of  the 
Bishops  in  New- York  as  he  might  think  it  covered. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Wharton,  pledging  himself  and  the  Bishop  of 


j^  CONSRATULATORf      EPISTLE. 

New  Jersey  not  to  take  advantage  of  any  postponoment,  is  unfortu- 
nately to  be  judged  not  by  the  morals  of  Bishops,  but  by  the  more 
rigid  code  of  the  bar. 

That  pledge  was  a  tro}),  unless  it  mean  that  no  advantage  will  be 
taken  of  any  step  requisite  to  avoid  the  error  of  the  postponement. 
in  that  sense  Mr.  Wharton  undoubtedly  meant  it. 

The  postponement  put  an  end  to  the  Court.  Your  Right  Rev. 
Fathers  have  solemnly  resolved,  and  that  unanimously,  that  at  your 
meeting  in  October,  at  the  time  the  postponement  appointed,  you 
could  not  take  cognizance  of  the  iirst  presentment.  1'he  postpone- 
ment had  destroyed  the  Court,  and  any  meeting  under  that  postpone- 
ment would  have  been  a  body  without  jurisdiction.  Consent  cannot 
confer  it,  nor  in  any  manner  remove  the  defect.  There  was,  there- 
fore, no  possible  method  of  getting  a  trial  on  the  first  presentment. 

The  only  possible  method  was  the  one  adopted — to  prepare  a  new 
presentment,  and  have  a  new  Court  summoned. 

This  the  Presenters  did  ;  and  Bishop  Doane  availed  himself  of  this 
delay  to  cause  the  purgation,  which  the  order  recites,  to  be  made,  and 
by  which  the  presentment  was  defeated. 

Bishop  Doane,  under  the  relaxed  rules  of  episcopal  morals,  may 
be  allowed  to  say  that  the  one  or  two  additional  specifications  relieved 
him  from  his  pledge.  But  Mr.  Wharton,  whose  exquisite  delicacy  of 
moral  and  theological  feeling  pervaded  his  social  and  professional 
i-elations  throughout  the  trial,  would  scarcely  venture  to  face  his 
brethren  with  such  a  suggestion.  Yet  he  remained  the  counsel  of 
Bishop  Doane  to  the  last. 

Did  the  Bishop  act  in  this  matter,  as  in  the  affidavit,  "  under  legal 
advice  f ' 

The  order  was  adopted,  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  six,  affirming  the 
validity  of  the  purgation. 

It  is  unfortunate.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  the  value  of  so  impor- 
tant a  decision  should  be  lessened  by  the  multiplicity  of  reasons  as- 
signed for  it. 

Had  it  been  put  on  the  simple  ground  of  an  ecclesiastical  purga- 
tion, it  would  have  been  intelligiUle. 

Had  no  reasons  been  assigned,  the  decision  (beitig  right  under  the 
Canon  law,)  could  have  been  fully  defended  as  ecclesiastical  purga- 
tion. 

But  the  extreme  exuberance  of  the  argument  and  observations 
■With  which  you  have  crowded  your  opinions,  obscures  the  simple 
beauty  fif  the  decision,  and  leaves  open  too  nm(h  room  to  doubtful 
disputation,  as  its  real  groimds. 


CON  (J  li  A  TULA  TORY      EPI8TLK.  23 

It  is  clear,  liowevcr,  that  the  majority  of  the  Court  agreed  with 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  in  the  paramount  and  discretionary  nature 
of  vour  powers — that  you  represent  the  blended  and  iusepai'al)le  relic- 
tions of  the  legislative  executive  and  judicial  powers — that  you  hold 
them  from  Jesus  Christ — that  the  Canon  gave  you  nothing,  and  can 
restrain  you  in  nothing;  that  it  merely  prescribes  a  rule  for  conve- 
nience which,  when  inconvenient,  you  can  disregard — thai  possessed 
of  all  power,  you  are  troubled  by  "no  mere  omission,"  but  can  help 
it  out  by  an  unuttered  thought ;  and  when  the  Canon  ordered  a  plea 
and  a  trial,  you  could  rightfully  order  no  plea  and  no  trial. 

Thus  viewed,  this  decision  is  a  glorious  vindication  of  the  episco- 
pal theory,  by  an  authentic  judgment.  It  put  an  end  to  the  contro- 
versy which  so  long  has  agitated  the  Church.  If  this  proceeding  was 
inspired  by  the  spirit  of  that  controversy,  the  blow  has  recoiled  on 
the  assailants.  It  is  the  Waterloo  of  the  war  of  the  high  and  of  the 
low  church  ;  and  your  recent  decision  indicates,  by  its  unanimity,  tho 
Removal  of  that  scandal  which  so  long  has  exhibited  you  as  a  divided 
Church. 

Every  judgment.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  involves  the  assertion  of 
every  power  requisite  to  pass  it  legally.  Yours  is  the  judgment  of 
the  highest  Court  of  last  resort  in  the  Church.  From  it  there  is  no 
appeal.  It  is  competent  for  no  one  to  explain  your  judgment  as  an 
intentional  usurpation.  It  must  be  taken  as  your  assertion  of  the 
measure  of  your  powers. 

It  is  either  a  wanton  outrage,  or  it  is  a  judicial  act.  If  the  latter, 
it  means  that  you  claim  and  assert  the  right  to  pass  that  judgment 
and  every  other  judgment  within  the  reason  of  it. 

This  judgment  then,  pushed  to  its  principles,  places  your  order, 
Right  Rev.  Faihers,  on  a  ground  it  has  never  before  occupied  openly 
in  this  country,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  lay  control. 

It  asserts  the  inherent  rights  of  episcopal  prerogative,  derived 
from  the  apostles  by  descent,  not  from  the  people  by  gift. 

It  asserts  the  union  in  the  Bishops,  of  all  legislative,  executive  and 
judicial  power  over  the  Church. 

It  repudiates  the  constitutions  and  Canons  of  our  American  Church 
as  either  sources  or  limitations  of  their  authoi'ity. 

It  asserts  your  right  to  act  at  your  own  discretion  in  the  silence 
of  the  Canon  on  a  mere  omission  ;  as  for  instance,  in  allowing  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey  to  interpose  its  purgation  in  lieu  of  a  plea  of 
guilty  or  not  guilty  ;  and  your  equally  abscjiute  discretion  to  act  in 
the  face  of  the  express  words  of  the  Canon  ;  as  for  instance,  where  it 
declared   that  on  a  presentment  the  proceedings  "  shall   be  as  fol- 


24  CONGRATULATORY      KPISTLE. 

lows,"  you  did.  not  take  those  proceedings,  but  others  which  did  not 
"  follow." 

It  asserts  the  absolute  right  of  a  Diocese  to  prohibit  at  its  will 
and  pleasure,  by  refusal  to  present,  or  by  failure  to  present,  any  trial 
of  its  Bishop — thus  annulling  the  Canon  which  said  he  might  be  tried. 

It  asserts,  in  other  words,  the  plain  principle,  that  our  Bishops 
derive  no  powers  from  the  constitution  and  Canons — are  not  bound 
to  stop  where  they  are  silent,  to  do  what  they  command,  to  refrain 
from  what  they  forbid.    But, 

That  they  derive  their  whole  authority  from  the  a|:)0stles  by  suc- 
cession, which  being  original,  cannot  be  given  them ;  and  being  from 
God,  cannot  be  limited  by  men  ;  and  being  for  the  good  of  the  Church, 
are  to  be  exercised  at  their  discretion  ; — and  that  Canons  and  consti- 
tutions are  merely  methods  for  procuring  conformity  of  action,  pre- 
venting collisions  of  jurisdiction,  and  securing  concert  in  its  exercise. 
That  their  language,  however  imperative,  is  never  obligatory ;  and 
that  when  disregarded  or  violated,  it  is  merely  the  change  of  will  of 
one  whose  will  is  the  life  of  the  law. 

The  judgment  implies  all  this.  You,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  while 
driven  to  do  this  great  act  of  discipline,  were  yet  quite  too  prudent 
to  venture  on  the  assertion  in  plain  terms  of  the  powers  which  you 
exercised. 

You  knew  too  well  the  suspicion  entertained  by  our  people  of  any 
authority  above  their  control.  They  think  it  savors  of  despotism. 
They  do  not  see  so  clearly  as  you  do  the  restraining  influence  of  the 
apostolic  grace ;  and  feeling  that  it  is  unlimited  in  its  nature,  they 
fear  it  may  become  despotic,  and  must  always  be  arbitrary  in  its  ex^ 
ereise.  Our  republican  habits  have  poisoned  our  minds  against  such 
irresponsible  power,  though  it  be  from  so  sacred  a  source  as  the 
apostolic  succession.  We  are  impatient  of  any  control,  however 
salutary,  which  we  cannot  ourselves  control.  We  love  to  feel  our- 
selves the  fountain  of  power,  and  we  submit  to  authority  chiefly  be- 
cause we  are  flattered  by  the  idea  that  it  is  self  control.  You  know 
lull  well  the  struggle  to  limit  the  episcopal  power  at  its  introduction 
into  this  Church,  and  with  how  many  scruples  it  was  in  many  places 
accepted  ;  and  you  know  that  it  is  only  by  careful  and  prudent  man- 
agement that  the  confidence  of  the  people  has  been  conciliated  and 
their  fears  put  to  sleep.  You  have  always  allowed  them  to  delude, 
themselves  with  the  supposition  that  if  you  did  not  draw  all  your 
power  from  them,  yet  you  did  draw  some  of  it;  that  you  could  be 
controlled  by  laws,  and  that  there  were  limits  to  your  authority. 
You  have  concurred  in  making  constitutions  and  Canons  wliich  give, 


CONORATULATOIIY      EPISTLE.  25 

take  away,  regulate  and  modify,  all  your  functions.  These  Canons 
always  speak  in  the  name  of  laity  and  clergy — in  the  language  of  law 
and  command — -enacting  obedience,  and  punishing  by  courts  and  pen- 
alties even  the  highest  head  which  disobeys  them.  You  have  always 
been  careful  to  seem  to  submit  to  these  laws ;  to  act  in  conformity 
with  them.  You  have  even  countenanced  the  idea  of  your  authority 
being  limited  by  applying  for  Canons  to  authorize  acts  of  clerical  dis- 
cipline, and  tlie  performance  of  spiritual  functions. 

In  this  method  the  vigilance  and  suspicion  of  the  people  have  been 
made  to  slumber ;  their  confidence  has  been  won,  so  that  now  you 
have  ventured  to  do  what  before  it  would  have  been  dangerous  to  do. 
Not  dangerous  to  your  legitimate  authority — for  that  is  from  the 
apostles,  and  survives  every  outrage  which  limits  it,  by  rebellion — but 
dangerous  to  that  quiet  submission  to  your  authority  which  is  essen- 
tial to  the  production  of  all  its  fruits.  You  have,  witli  Christian  pru» 
dence,  refrained  from  rousing  or  oflending  the  stubborn  heart  of  re- 
publican pride,  so  long  as  you  could  manage  to  attain  your  ends  by 
soothing  its  irritability  and  allaying  its  fears. 

So  successful  has  this  course  of  treatment,  under  Providence,  been, 
that  now  you  can  venture  to  act  on  the  assumption  of  your  actual 
inherent,  original  and  absolute  prerogatives,  without  law,  and  in  viola- 
tion of  law,  according  to  your  own  good  pleasure. 

Still  you  have  not  felt  quite  secure  of  the  entire  acceptance  of 
your  views  of  your  authority  by  the  people  of  this  country.  You 
thought  they  might  acquiesce  in  your  acts,  provided  they  were  not 
startled  by  assertions  of  power  and  principles  which  might  cause 
anxiety  for  the  future. 

You  have,  therefore,  carefully  abstained  from  tracing  the  real 
principle  on  which  your  judgment  was  founded,  and  have  not  pushed 
the  rights  that  principle  involves  to  its  ultimate  consequences.  You 
have  been  careful  and  eminently  successful  in  covering  up,  amid  a 
cloud  of  irrelevant  suggestions,  inconclusive  arguments,  unsolved 
doubts,  small  irregularities,  vague  phrases  touching  ancient  Canons, 
and  the  higher  law  of  Christian  charity — tlie  great  principle  of  your 
sovereign,  absolute,  inherent  and  uncontrollable  power. 

Some  of  you  have  been  less  fortunate  in  concealing  this  esoteric 
doctrine  of  your  order  than  others. 

The  opinions  of  those  eminently  orthodox  churchmen,  the  Bishop 
of  Maryland  and  the  Bishop  of  Western  New- York,  are  models  of 
composition,  successfully  defying  detection  of  the  great  principal  they 
involve,  by  the  cloudy  generality  of  vague  and  unsubstantial  doubts 
which  float  round  the  latter,  and  the  profuse  and  bewildering  "con- 
siderings  "  which  conceal  the  pathway  of  the  former. 


86  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

Oil  tho  Other  hand,  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops  of  Indiana  and  of 
New  Hampshire  verge  on  the  very  limits  of  dangerous  and  indiscreet 
candor;  and  but  for  the  multitudo  of  supplemental  considerations 
which  viiey  embody,  as  allies,  to  cover  the  too  great  exposure  of  their 
central  principles,  would  almost  be  fit  subjects  of  friendly  remon- 
strance, un  behalf  of  their  brethren,  from  their  needlessly  jeoparding 
the  interests  of  the  order. 

1  may  be  permitted  to  point  out  to  your  eye  only,  for  imitation 
or  warning,  a  few  of  the  peculiar  excellencies  of  the  former,  in  saying 
a  great  deal,  yet  disclosing  nothing,  and  a  few  of  the  faults  of  the 
latter  in  imprudently  disclosing  what  they  are  afterwards  driven  to 
attem])t  to  conceal. 

There  were  too  great  points,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  which  your 
solemn  duty  to  yourselves  and  to  your  flocks  requii-e  you  to  guard. 
The  one  was  that  you  firmly  maintain  the  absolute  irresponsibility  of 
every  Bishop  to  any  law,  by  whomsoever  made. 

The  other  was,  that  you  should  so  maintain  those  essential  rights 
as  not  needlessly  to  arouse  the  prejudices,  the  hostility,  the  opposition 
of  the  laity.  For  your  high  and  solemn  functions  you  cherish  only 
for  the  benefit  of  those  committed  to  your  care,  and  you  feel  how 
seriously  your  usefulness  would  be  impaired  by  a  controversy  which 
only  a  slight  imprudence  might  provoke. 

You  have  acted  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  meekness,  and  while 
manfully  taking  a  necessary  step  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  youi^ 
order  for  the  benefit  of  your  wayward  children,  you  have  been  careful 
so  to  disguise  the  olfensive  deed  in  soft  words  as  to  lull  or  disarm  the 
most  sensitive  of  your  opponents. 

You  have  done  an  act  which  you  could  rightfully  do  only  on  the 
principle  that  no  canon  binds  you  by  its  commands  or  prohibitions; 
but  that  your  jurisdiction  is  paramount  and  original,  and  uncon- 
trollable. That  act  of  judgment  establishes  for  ever  your  order  on 
that  basis  of  original  and  inherent  right;  for  no  judgment  is  ever  to 
be  presumed  to  be  an  usurpation  or  a  wrongful  act — but  to  flow  from 
whatever  principle  is  requisite  to  sustain  it.  The  act  involves  the 
right  to  do  it,  and  your  great  act  establishes  your  absolute  indepen- 
dence of  all  the  canons,  without  which  there  is  no  free  Bishop. 

[t  has  been  matter  of  curious  and  instructive  observation  to  follow 
the  line  of  reasoning  by  which  that  great  principle  is  involved,  yet 
never  expressed;  and  as  we  progress,  we  are  filled  with  alternate 
wonder  and  gratitude  at  the  charity  which  softened  the  assertion  of 
your  necessary  prerogatives,  which  time  and  circumstances  have  made 
an  otfence  to  this  people,  and  at  the  skill  which  made  that  charity 


CONGRATULATORY      KPI8TLB. 


S^ 


effectual.  Wc  are  borne  along  from  sentence  to  sentence  by  the  rich 
and  exhaustless  originality  of  device  for  the  peaceful  attainment  of 
an  unpopular,  but  necessary  end. 

1  may  be  permitted  to  select,  as  an  example,  the  Bishop  of  Wes- 
tern New-York — so  soft  and  winning  of  speech,  so  artful  and  astute 
in  contrivance,  so  fertile  in  devices,  so  protean  and  impenetrable  in 
his  disguises. 

Though  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind,  according  to  the  Scripture, 
of  his  great  and  spiritual  pi'erogatives,  he  has  availed  himself  of  th6 
modest  and  attractive  form  of  doubts  instead  of  offensive  and  dog- 
matic denials  of  the  opposing  views.  Hume  had  applied  that  form  of 
oblique  assault  to  his  diabolical  purposes.  A  holy  father  has  arrested 
the  infidel's  weapons  from  his  hand,  and  turned  them  to  the  defence  of 
the  citadel  of  the  Church. 

This  great  yet  prudent  champion  of  the  Episcopate  first  wins  his 
readers  by  a  full,  faithful  and  candid  statement  of  "facts  and  papers" 
which  contain  the  whole  events  of  the  cause.  He  follows  them  by 
his  "  Conclusions."  If  accepted  in  a  docile  spirit  they  are  eminently 
satisfactory.  But  those  who  are  inquisitively  curious  as  to  the  hidden 
link  between  the  facts  and  the  conclusions — the  principle  by  which 
the  one  leads  to  the  o'her — are  justly  left  to  flounder  in  the  void 
abyss  which  he  has  been  careful  not  to  bridge,  and  which  their  shallow 
minds  are  unable  to  fathom. — Observe  his  conclusion 

"As    to    the    Court." 

"  It  is  uncertain  whether  we  are  assembled  canonically  as  a  special 
Court  to  try  the  first  presentment,  or  as  a  special  Court  to  try  thd 
second  presentment,  or  as  a  general  Court  to  try  both  presentments, 
or  as  any  Court  at  all." 

How  could  the  boldest  lay  intellect  ever  deduce  this  uncertain 
conclusion  from  the  "facts  and  papers"  which  showed  a  summons  of 
the  Court  to  try  the  only  presentment  which  was  then  under  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Court,  the  actual  meeting  of  the  Court  under  that- 
summons,  the  actual  reading  of  that  presentment  and  none  other, 
and  the  order  under  consideration  for  its  dismission  ?  He  would  be 
simple  enough  to  turn  to  the  Canon — trace  the  conformity  of  the 
proceedings  step  by  step  with  its  words — and  bewildered  by  the  word 
"canonically"  he  would  confess  his  inability  to  explore  the  mystery 
of  this  reasoning,  and  acquiesce,  with  childlike  submission,  in  what  is 
manifestly  beyond  his  capacity. 

It  would  never  cross  his  mind  to  solve  the  seeming  mystery  by 
interpreting  "canonically"  to  mean  according  to  the  Canon — not  of 
Wie  General  Convention,  but — of   Scripture :    and  that   Canon    con- 


88  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

fcn-ing  on  you,  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  plenary  powers  of 
individual  independence,  it  loas  more  than  doubtful  whether,  as- 
sembled under  a  human  summons,  you  even  assembled  "  as  any 
Court  at  ally 

He  would  remain  bewildered,  because  not  possessed  of  the  great 
principle  that  you  do  not  act  under  the  Canons  which  assume  to  com- 
mand and  to  forbid  you — that  you  do  not  derive  any  authority  from 
them — but  receiving  it  from  God  through  the  succession,  those  Ca- 
nons can  and  do  neither  give  nor  limit  nor  control  it — but  are  a 
fond  and  vain  conceit  of  men  who  think  thus  to  subjugate  to  their 
will  your  divine  and  spiritual  prerogatives. 

"As  to    the    iircsenlmeiit." 

"  It  is  uncertain  whether  we  have  canonically  before  us  the  Jirst 
presentment,  or  the  second  presentment,  or  both  presentments,  or  any 
presentment  at  all." 

Here  the  same  modest  reserve  leaves  the  inquisitive  layman  in 
the  same  perplexity.  "  Canonically  "  sends  him  hunting  through  the 
Canon  of  1844  to  solve  the  uncertainty  as  to  whether  iha  first ^  or  the 
second,  or  both,  were  before  the  Court  in  conformity  with  that  Canon, 
Our  astute  Father  smiles  propter  simplicitate  laicorum — who  never 
dream,  that  he  was  denying  that  "  any  presentment  at  all "  was  before 
them,  according  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  which  no  where  speaks  of 
a  Court  of  Bishops,  never  intimates  that  one  may  try  another,  and 
contemplates  them  only  as  speaking,  rebuking,  exhorting  with  all 
authority.  It  is  a  simple  argument; — if  they  have  all  authority,  they 
are  not  subject  to  any  !  !     Why  kick  against  the  pricks  ? — 

He  proceeds : 

"  These  uncertainties  in  the  case  would,  if  the  Court  proceed  to 
trial,  make  it  a  trial  before  a  Court  of  doubtful  jurisdiction,  on  a 
<loubtfal  presentment,  ....  with  no  authorities  or  precedents  of 
Church  Law  to  settle  the  questions,  and  under  a  Canon  for  trial  ad- 
mitted by  almost  all  to  be  most  wretchedly  defective." 

The  inquisitive  ingenuity  of  our  Right  Rev.  Father  has  invented 
a  new  species  of  jurisdiction,  termed  "a  doubtful  jurisdiction."  It  is 
a  species  unknown  to  the  Civil  Law,  but  well  befits  an  ecclesiastical 
Court,  which  is  not  certainly  "  any  Court  at  all,"  A  "  doubtful  pre- 
sentment "  is  the  only  form  of  pleading  allowable  before  such  a  tri- 
bunal. But  it  is  plain  no  Bishop  could  ever  be  tried  by  such  a  con- 
geries of  uncertainties  and  doubts ;  and  no  layman  could  ever  have 
the  fece  to  ask  it. 

The  remarkable  phrase  "within  authorities  or  precedents  of 
Church  Law  to  settle  the  questions  "  is  a  singiUarly  adroit  use  of  the 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE,  SSJ^ 

form  of  arguuieiit  known  to  lawyers  as  the  negative  pregnant.  It  is 
a  negative  suited  for  tiie  present,  but  pregnant  of  an  affirmative  to 
be  brought  forth  in  the  future.  It  disposes  for  ever  of  the  Onder- 
donk  case — hitherto  the  great  stumbling  block — in  the  ascent  to 
heights  of  episcopal  power.  Our  skilful  Father's  most  pregnant 
denial  of  any  authorities  or  precedents  of  Church  Law  "  is  pregnant 
with  the  affirmation  that  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  the  persecuted 
Confessor  of  New  York  were  acts  of  wrong,  null  and  void,  before 
Bishops  not  assembled  ''  as  any  Court  at  all."  It  is  pregnant  with 
the  "  unuttered  thought,"  that  the  Canon  of  1844  was  so  defective  as 
to  be  void,  and  all  proceedings  under  it  therefore  void  also. 

This  inspires  us  with  the  pleasing  hope.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that 
tardy  justice  will  restore  that  venei'able  martyr  to  the  bosoms  of  his 
longing  daughters — a  work  worthy  of  the  virtue  of  a  body  whose 
overflowing  charity  has  sufficed  to  return  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
— in  the  face  of  graven  charges — without  even  a  trial,  to  his  inde- 
pendent Diocese.  Our  Right  Rev.  Father  owed  it  to  high  principle 
to  make  that  declaration — he  consulted  prudence,  which  these  evil 
tirnes  require  in  the  reserved  generality  of  the  allusion.  Yet  every 
heart  on  your  bench,  Right  Rev,  Fathers,  leaped  to  apply  it  to  its 
object  without  the  aid  of  an  innuendo — safe  from  the  dangerous  divi- 
nation of  the  multitude.  Should  it  ever  strike  them  in  this  light, 
fliey  will  think  the  Right  Rev.  Father,  as  Dominie  Sampson  thought 
Lawyer  Pleydell — "a  very  erudite  and  facetious  person." 

But  far  the  most  adroit  implication  of  your  freedom  from  the 
control  of  the  Canon  is  in  that  remarkable  passage,  where  under  the 
form  of  defects  this  most  learned  Father  makes  the  very  words  of  the 
Canon  the  reasons  for  annulling  it.  Out  of  its  own  mouth  it  stands 
condemned  to  silence  in  your  presence.    He  suggests  that — 

It  allows  a  Bishop  inf controversy  Avith  the  accused,  and  an  as- 
sistant of  the  accusers,  to  sit — provides  no  challenge,  no  appeal,  no 
compulsory  pi'ocess  for  witnesses,  and  makes  the  presenters  the  pro- 
secutors— : 

Because  those  things  are  so  in  the  Canon,  he  rightly  regards  them 
as  reasons  for  not  trying  this  case  before  this  Court  at  this  time. 
Even  this  pi"oposition  so  carefully  guarded  against  lay  misinterpi-eta- 
tion,he  further,  with  the  utmost  diligence,  guards  against  lay  prejudice. 
They  will  innocently  apply  the  admission  that  the  "  defects  of  a 
Canon  constitute  no  reason  for  wholly  refusing  to  try  a  case " — to 
this  Canon  and  Court — while  he  is  laboriously  asserting  the  difference 
between  yowr  exalted  attributes,  which  are  above  the  Canon,  and  en- 
title you  to  disregard  it,  if  to  you  it  seem  good,  and  those  inferior 


30  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

persons  who,  like  Marshall  and  Taney, — are  bound  to  enforce  any 
Law,  however  defective.  To  persons  vested  with  absolute  power,  itj 
is  never  impertinent  to  point  out  defects  in  the  rules  they  have  laid 
down  for  the  guidance  of  their  own  wills.  They  may  modify  or  dis- 
regard them  at  pleasure,  and  with  impunity.  But  such  conduct  in 
Marshall  or  Taney  would  merit  and  receive  impeachment.  So  exalt- 
ed is  your  authority  !  ! 

It  is  curiously  illustrative  of  the  difference  between  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  legislation — that  nearly  all  the  qualities  which  are 
enumerated  as  defects  in  your  Canon,  exist  in  the  constitution  (jf  the 
Supreme  Court,  sitting  in  a  controversy  between  sovereign  States, 
There  is  no  rtppeal,  no  challenge  ;  and  a  judge  who  sat  below,  may 
sit  above.  But  the  objects  of  the  two  Courts  occasion  the  dilference. 
The  purpose  of  the  Canon  is  to  make  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  hard — 
of  the  Law  to  make  the  adjustment  of  state  disputes  easy  and  cer- 
tain. Hence  what  is  a  defect  in  the  former,  may  well  be  a  perfec- 
tion in  the  latter.  So  true  and  profound  was  the  denial  of  all  analogy, 
between  the  Court  of  Bishops  and  any  other  tribunal  on  earth! ! 

From  these  recondite  reasons  he  ventures  at  last,  fearfully,  neaj 
to  the  exposure  of  his  whole  position  to  lay  eyes. 

He  sees  "  in  the  solemn  fact "  that  a  new  Canon  is  proposed,  re- 
pealing the  existing  Canon — a  reason  for  not  precipitating  (i.  e.  con- 
ducting at  the  rate  and  time  prescribed  by  the  Canon)  any  trial  of  a 
Bishop. 

I  fear,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  this  reason  on  this  solemn  fact  is  too 
plain  to  be  safe.  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  possibility  of  your  re- 
pealing a  law  hereafter  is  a  valid  reason  for  treating  it  as  no  law  till 
it  is  repealed  But  was  it  prudent  to  say  so  much  so  explicitly  ? 
Even  "  lay  gents  "  are  capable  of  a  chain  of  reasoning  no  longer  than 
this — "  all  Canons  may  be  repealed,  for  all  are  defective ;  therefore 
the  Bishops  may  refuse  to  obey  all  of  them  forever." 

The  reason  is  one  of  those  which,  like  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  is 
powerful  to  the  dividing  asunder  the  bone  and  marrow  ;  and  unless 
wielded  with  a  prudent  reserve,  it  may  divide  you,  Right  Rev.  Fa- 
thers, from  your  loving  laity. 

let  this  slight  imprudence  in  the  moment  and  excitement  of  vic- 
tory may  well  be  pardoned  to  a  Prelate  who  has  shown  how  to 
maintain  your  power  in  the  midst  of  concessions — retaining  the 
reality  of  naked  power,  while  leaving  the  robe  in  the  hand  of  the 
usurping  laitv. 

The  brief  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  is  the  model  of  per- 
fect mystery.  I  omit  the  introductory  "views,"  that  I  may  hasten 
to  the  masterly  conclusion. 


CONGRATULATOUY      EPISTLE.  3| 

"  In  the  belief  that  this  Court,  as  an  asaemhlf  of  Bishops,  in  the 
CluH-eh  of  God,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  for  (he  discharge  of  ihc  duty 
of  administering  discipline  in  its  large  and  full  sense,  is  bound  to  re- 
cognise and  respect  the  position,  and  claims,  and  rights  of  a  Diocese 
in  the  said  Church ;  and  in  the  present  instance,  cannot  refuse  to  hear 
and  comply  with  the  request  of  such  a  Diocese,  that  it  be  not  inter- 
fered with  in  its  incohate  exercise  of  discipline  within  its  borders  " — 
he  is  of  opinion  that  the  order  ought  to  pass. 

On  reading  the  above  attentively,  I  once  heard  a  simple  layman, 
with  a  puzzled  expression,  exclaim — 

"  Abracndnbrn  !  !  !" 

I  pitied  his  simplicity  in  trying  to  understand  it ;  yet,  felicitated  you, 
Right  Rev.  Fathers,  on  the  security  with  v/hich  the  "  doctrine  of  re- 
serve "  has  invested  the  most  essential  j)rinciples  of  your  Holy  order. 
I  was  never  before  fully  aware  of  the  power  of  language  to  conceal. 

This  opinion  is  a  model  of  the  intangible,  the  indcHnite,  the  shiftr 
ing,  the  impalpable,  the  spiritual,  the  mystical.  It  is  everything  and 
nothing ;  it  is  pregnant  and  empty  ;  it  is  space,  filled  vrilh  substan- 
tives, yet  void;  it  is  matter  of  the  metaphysicians,  form  and  a  con- 
geries of  points  of  attraction  and  expulsion.  The  Coxirt  melts  into 
an  indefinite  "  assembly  of  Bishops  " — not  Bi.hops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  but  Bishops  of  "  (he  Church  of  God^''  met  together, 
not  summoned,  by  virtue  of  their  ofllce,  not  by  order  of  the  Cation^  for 
the  discharge  of  the  duty  of  administering  discipline,  not  thj  trial  of 
thejiresentment;  in  its  full  and  large  sense,  not  in  the  empty  and  narrow 
sense  of  the  crimes  and  immoralities  specified  in  the  Canon;  and  this 
impalpable  assembly  of  an  indefinite  body  he  believes  cannot  refuse 
to  hear  the  request  of  the  Diocese.  Indeed  it  would  be  strange  if  it 
could  refuse  any  thing  to  any  body. 

A  more  cflectual  abrasifjn  of  the  Court  as  a  body,  holding  autho- 
rity, is  not  to  be  found  in  all  your  opinions,  Right  Rev.  Fathers.  It 
is  the  fit  sequel  to  that  famous  protest  of  its  author,  whereby  in  the 
beginning  he  denied  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  over  the  subjects 
submitted  to  it  by  the  Canon,  and  boldly  pronounced  its  proceedings 
"null  and  void"  in  advance.  He  destroyed  at  a  blow  the  authority 
of  the  Court;  but  he  emancipated  you  fi'om  even  the  semblance  of 
obligation  to  obey  the  Canon — and  what  you  lost  in  authority  jointly 
was  more  than  compensated  by  the  absoluteness  of  irresponsible 
diocesan  independence: 

To  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  you  owe  an  eternal  debt  of  gratitude 
for  the  skiifijl  method  he  has  devised  for  asserting  safely  a  doctrine 
so  fraught  with  danger  in  the  evil  days  whereon  you  are  iallen — 


^2  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE, 

when  the  children's  stomachs,  rejecting    meat,  must    be   indulged 
Avith  milk. 

Ma}'  I  venture  to  contrast,  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  and  with 
an  earnest  protest  against  the  slightest  disrespect,  the  rather  unepisco- 
pal  candor  of  the  Bishop  of  Michigan,  with  the  prudent  reserve  of 
the  Bishop  of  Maryland. 

He  roundly  declares — speaking  of  the  acts  authorized  expressly  hy 
the  Canon  : 

"  No. c?^ocese  could  or  would  submit  to  such  an  interference — as  its 
independence  would  be  lost,  and  its  whole  action  placed  under  the 
supervision  o{  foreign  Bishops,  and  a  power  would  be  raised  up  in 
the  Church  far  worse  than  the  2^oiver  of  Rome.'''' 

So  explicit  a  proclamation  of  that  great  truth  was  fearfully 
dangerous.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  at  this  time.  He  does  not  correctly 
insinuate,  but  he  openly  pronounces  that  the  enforcement  of  the 
Canon,  according  to  its  own  provisions,  will  not  be  submitted  to — 
it  would  subject  the  dioceses  to  foreign  authority,  worse  than  that  of 
Rome.  This  will  sound  to  the  ill  instructed  laity  very  much  like 
rebellion  and  nullification.  In  their  rude  mode  of  considering  the 
Church,  they  dream  that  it  is  a  church  of  law — governed  by  legal 
rules  and  officers,  and  that  no  diocese  is  foreign  to  or  independent  of 
another,  still  less  of  the  whole  Church.  They  made  this  Canon  un- 
der the  supposition  that  the  whole  Church  had  a  right  to  interfere 
in  and  supervise  every  diocese.  Even  the  General  Convention — a 
body  depending  for  existence,  it  is  true,  on  your  good  pleasure,  and 
which  you  allow  to  play  at  Canon  making — is  a  body  too  powerful 
safely  or  lightly  to  be  offended  ;  and  I  much  doubt  if  they  will  sit 
quietly  under  this  round  rating  of  their  work.  I  fear  they  w^ill  prick 
up  their  ears  when  they  learn  from  the  Bishop  of  New  Hampshire 
that  the  "  authority  of  this  Court,  while  administering  Canon  Law,  is 
subject  to  the  demands  of  the  higher  Law  of  charity  ;"  and  that  it  is 
"bound  "  to  see,  that  Canon  or  special  laws  are  not  so  put  in  operation 
against  the  Members  of  Chrisfs  Body  (i.  e.  the  Bishops)  as  to  se 
parate  them  from  the  2'>i'ivileges  and  immunities  secured  for  them 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  by  that  higher  LawP 

The  vmtoward  events  of  the  last  few  centuries  have  painfully 
shaken  their  conviction  of  the  abiding  presence  of  God  with  those 
members  of  his  Body — which  sometimes  they  have  seen  make  strange 
haste  to  do  what  in  them  av ould  be  sin ;  and  they  have  more  than 
once  rashly  applied  the  knife  to  members  even  of  that  incorruptible 
body — thus  doing  evil,  that  good  might  come,  in  the  A^ain  fear  that 
the  gangrene  might  spread. 


C  O  N  a  H  A  T  U  L  A  T  O  H  Y      EPISTLE.  3S 

It  is  over  these  men,  liiglit  Rev.  Fathers,  that  yon  are  placed  to 
rule — like  lambs  over  a  floek  of  wolves.  They  are  fierce  of  spc^ech, 
and  stubborn  of  heart,  and  prone  to  carry  into  the  Church  the  sub- 
versive theories  which  shake  the  foundation  of  the  state.  They  are 
proud  and  must  be  humored — they  are  fierce  men  and  must  Le  dealt 
gently  with. 

It  is  doubtless  true,  too  true,  that  the  enforcement  of  the  Canon 
of  1844  is  fatal  to  your  independence.  It  is  still  more  unfortunately 
true  that  the  Canon  is  utterly  regardless  of  the  higher  law  of  charity, 
and  pronounces  itself  to  be  the  highest  and  only  law  for  your  guidance 
in  administering  it ;  and  it  rises  to  the  height  of  sacrilege  Vvhen  it  as- 
sumes to  authorize  you  "  so  to  put  it  in  operation  against  the  members 
of  Christ's  Body  as  to  separate  them  from  the  privileges  and  immu- 
nities secured  to  them  through  the  mercy  of  God."  Yet,  Right  Rev. 
Fathers,  1  pray  you,  what  is  to  be  done?  The  principles  you  cannot 
compromise — you  cannot  yield,  yet  you  must  not  declare  it.  For 
these  men  of  Belial  may  seize  and  ply  the  knife  you  have  thrown 
down,  with  ignorant  and  destructive  zeal.  They  may  destroy  the 
flow  of  Spiritual  grace  to  the  members  of  Christ's  Body  by  severing 
the  spinal  cord  of  the  succession.  Their  fathers  have  done  as  much 
before  our  day,  and  you  are  the  solitary  and  feeble  monuments  of 
the  mercy  of  God,  kept  alive  to  preserve  the  genuine  flow  of  Spiritual 
life  till  a  more  propitious  season.  You  are  a  few  in  the  midst  of  the 
millions  of  erring  and  hopelessly  misguided  protestants,  who  wan- 
der for  ever,  like  sheep  halving  no  shepherd.  A  rash  act  may  deliver 
you  over  to  the  rough  hands  of  men  who  hate  prelacy,  and  leave 
your  cherished  flocks  without  a  guide.  For  these  men  are  set  in  the 
delusion,  that  the  Canon  is  a  Laia — binding  Bishops  no  less  than 
priest  and  deacons — to  be  obeyed,  not  to  be  set  at  naught,  suspended, 
or  postponed — still  less  to  be  annulled  by  the  higher  law  of  brotherly 
love  between  Bishops.  They  must  be  carefully  and  tenderly  brought 
to  know  the  real  state  of  things — after  the  style  of  the  Bishops  of 
Maryland  and  New- York.  Their  eyes  must  be  educated  to  bear  the 
light  of  your  heaven-descended  prerogatives,  lest  they  be  frightened 
in  waking  suddenly  at  what  their  bewildered  imaginations  will  mis- 
take for  the  frightful  spectre  of  Spiritual  Despotism.  Their  fathers 
exorcised  and  laid  ic  by  potent  spells — by  prayer  and  light — by  arms 
of  the  Spirit  and  of  the  flesh.  Their  youthful  minds  were  poisoned 
with  horror  at  its  form.  It  was  the  nursery  tale  to  frighten  them  to 
quiet.  It  was  the  giant  for  whose  encounter  their  manhood  was  to 
be  braced.  They  have  been  brought  up  in  this  perverse  and  un- 
christian spirit — this  wayward  and  impatient  independence — the 

3 


34  CONGRATULATORY       EPISTLE. 

self-sufficient  disregard  of  divine  authority.  This  horror  of  your  Tuild, 
merciful  and  indulgent  power,  which  claims  independence  only,  that 
it  may  be  free  to  bless,  is  the  lamentable  result  of  that  education 
which  has  imbued  their  minds  with  the  errors  held  as  the  truth  of 
God that  no  power,  which  claims  from  God  and  is  above  the  con- 
trol of  man,  can  be  any  thing  but  despotism — whether  it  be  the 
divine  nVht  of  Kings  or  the  divine  right  of  Bishops,  To  awake  them 
suddenly  to  the  consciousness  that  such  is  your  claim  were 
dangerous. 

Right  Rev.  Fathers,  I  warn  you  that  if  you  would  maintain  your 
order  intact — if  you  would  attain  to  the  uncontroled  exercise  of  abso- 
lute power,  you  must  manage  the  people  gently,  softly,  astutely. 

We  are  deeply  imbued  with  the  divine  origin  of  your  power — 
with  its  paramount  authority  in  matters  of  faith  as  well  as  of  discipline 
and  jurisdiction.  We  know  that  the  latter  are  the  most  substantial  of 
your  prerogatives ;  without  which  the  others  are  burthens  without 
emolument.  You  know  the  strength  of  this  principle  of  inherent 
power.  It  sets  at  naught  all  attempts  at  control ;  it  defies  limitation  ; 
it  laughs  at  subjection  to  any  rules  of  human  reason ;  it  was  given  to 
lead  it,  and  how  shall  it  follow  and  be  led  by  it?  We  know  that  if 
God  himself  have  made  you  Bishops,  the  dispensers  of  His  Spiritual 
blessings,  and  the  administrators  of  the  discipline  of  His  Church,  your 
jurisdiction  is  universal — for  such  was  that  of  the  apostles  whose  suc- 
cessors you  are  ;  it  is  paramount  to  all  local  laws,  all  divisions  of 
dioceses,  all  constitutions  of  Church-government,  all  human  authority. 
You  can  never  be  judged,  for  who  is  your  superior  ?  You  can  never  bo 
degraded,  for  who  shall  stri^)  you  of  the  Spiritual  consecration  of  God  ? 
You  can  never  be  admonished,  for  who  shall  presume  to  know  more 
of  your  duties  than  you  on  whom  the  ineffable  light  and  grace  of  the 
succession  have  fallen  ? 

Laymen  have  no  right,  but  to  the  benefit  of  your  ministrations, 
your  intercessions,  your  sacramental  performances,  your  remission 
of  their  sins.  They  have  no  duty  but  submission  to  }  ou,  the  vice- 
gerents of  God.  Their  faith  is  what  you  shall  teach.  They,  therefore, 
have,  and  can  have,  over  you  no  control  in  matters  of  faith  or  of  dis- 
cipline. You  can  give  them  none.  Your  authority  is  not  yours,  to 
abandon,  to  share,  to  yield,  to  hold  in  obeyance.  It  is  a  high  and  Spiri- 
tual gift,  wielded  as  the  ambassadors  of  God,  over  His  people,  at  His 
will  and  for  their  benefit.  You  are  His  instruments  for  the  imparting 
of  His  blessings.  You  have  no  right  to  restrain  your  own  powers  by 
any  concession,  by  any  law,  by  any  constitution.  Your  very  arrange- 
ment of  diocesan  jurisdiction  is  merely  voluntary — for  the  sake  of 


CONGRATULATOUy     KPI8TI,K.  35 

convenience,  for  the  partition  of  the  field  of  labor,  but  not  in  any 
sense  binding  or  prohibiting  you  from  going  over  the  world  and 
preaching  the  Gospel  to  every  creature  ;  and  all  laws,  Canons  and 
constitutions,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  which  assume  the  contrary,  are 
usurpations,  submitted  to  for  the  time,  under  the  coercion  of  present 
necessity  ;  but  only  awaiting  the  fulness  of  time  and  the  advent  of 
oj)portunity  to  be  rolled  up  as  a  scroll,  and  to  melt  away  before  your 
constuniiig  and  devouring  authority. 

These  are  the  deep  and  abiding  principles  of  your  order. 

But,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  I  need  not  recall  to  your  minds  the 
present  prejudice  the  people  of  this  country,  and  their  fathers,  have 
ever  felt  towards  it.  They  have  protested  against  it — taken  up 
the  arms  of  rebellion  against  it — laid  violent  hands  on  the  Lord's 
anointed,  becauss  of  it.  They  have  persecuted,  even  to  the  death, 
the  meek  professors  of  this  principle.  They  long  submitted  to 
the  painful  deprivations  of  the  blessings  of  the  Spiritual  ministra- 
tions of  your  order,  for  fear  of  its  associations.  They  only  yielded 
to  the  yearnings  of  their  hearts  for  those  blessings,  with  fear,  and 
trembling — slowly,  reluctantly,  with  many  misgivings,  with  many 
protests,  reservations,  restrictions,  attempted  to  be  imposed  in  the 
vain  hope  that  they  could  secure  the  blessing,  yet  evade  the  authority 
paramount  and  independent.  They  did  not  know,  or  would  not  be- 
lieve, that  your  office  was  an  unit,  and  its  functions  inseparable,  and 
their  efficacy  dependent  absolutely  on  their  freedom  from  control 
here,  and  their  unbroken  descent  from  above,  and  undiminished  trans- 
mission to  the  future.  You  knew  how  futile  was  this  belief,  but  you 
knew  how  necessary  to  salvation  was  your  order.  You  suffered  them 
to  act  on  the  delusion  that,  in  spite  of  themselves,  they  might  obtain 
the  blessing.  You  have  acted,  and  they  have  tolerated  you,  because 
you  have  acted  as  if  you  were  under  the  Canons.  Though  not  bound 
by  them,  you  have  to  be  careful  to  do  nothing  without,  or  beyond,  or 
against  them.  You  have  not  admitted  them  as  a  source  of  authority, 
or  a  paramount  control ;  but,  having  the  right  to  act  according  to  your 
own  wills,  you  have  wisely  resolved  to  let  that  will  appear  only  in 
the  shape  of  Canons,  and  acts  in  conformity  thereto.  You  have  thus 
secured  substance  of  power  without  assuming  the  formal  emblems  of 
sovereignty.  The  laity  have  been  won  to  the  blessings  of  your  rule, 
because  they  have  assisted  at  your  Conventions,  been  consulted  in 
your  choice,  had  a  voice  in  your  laws,  and  your  administration. 
They  have  been  bred  up  in  the  idea  that  they  do  of  right  what  we 
know  they  do  only  on  sufferance  ;  and  they  would  furiously  repel  the 
suggestion  that  they  have  not  the   same  right  to  control  and  limit 


3(5  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

your  authority — to  give  or  withhold  your  jurisdiction,  that  they  have 
relative  to  their  civil  servants.  They  dream  of,  and  will  submit,  1 
fear,  to  uo  other  basis  of  your  authority.  The  day  on  which  you 
shall  reveal  the  full  extent  of  your  paramount  claims  to  inherent  pre- 
roo-atives,  will  be  the  last  of  your  blessed  rule  of  this  people. 

Be  careful  then,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  how  you  reveal  what  this 
most  momentous  judgment  involves  of  defiance  of  Canon  law  and  lay 
authority.  Be  content  with  the  fact  of  absolute  power  under  the 
humble  forms  of  constitutional  rule,  of  diocesan  independence,  of  the 
right  to  make  and  practice  your  own  code  of  morals,  and  repeal  the 
law  (-'f  the  Church  by  the  higher  law  of  charity.  But  fly  the  symbols 
of  irresponsible  power  as  the  myrtle's  poisoned  chaplet :  for  the  day 
of  its  assiuiiption  is  the  last  of  your  order. 

Be  content  with  christian  humility,  to  seem  to  the  eyes  of  men  to 
be  the  servants  of  servants,  that  you  may  be  the  lords  of  lords  over 
God's  heritage, 

A  year  rolled  round  Right  Rev,  Fathers  between  the  first  and 
the  second  of  these  great  processes,  in  which  you  have  played  so  lofty 
a  part. 

The  latter  was  equal  in  dramatic  interest,  in  play  of  character,  in 
astuteness  and  fertility  of  invention  and  contrivance,  in  ecclesiastical 
wisdom,  in  the  greatness  of  the  legal  and  moral  principles  illustrated 
and  maintained. 

I  turn  with  reverence  to  the  great  conclave  of  the  Second  Court 
of  Camden, 

The  wisdom  of  those  cautious  Right  Rev.  Fathers  is  best  illus- 
trated by  the  sequel  of  the  first  trial. 

It  was  the  clamor  which  greeted  the  slight  and  partial  revelation 
of  the  significant  act  you  had  performed,  which  encouraged  the  re- 
newal of  the  deplorable  agitation  of  a  new  presentment.  Your  wise 
moderation  has^  converted  the  evil  into  a  blessing.  Your  former  judg- 
ment vindicated  the  immunity  of  the  Bishops  from  trial.  The  new 
presentment  gave  you  an  opportunity  to  illustrate  the  rules  of  epis- 
copal morals. 

The  first  trial  went  off  on  a  naked  question  of  law,  the  existence 
of  an  absolute  discretion  in  your  order  to  regard  or  disregard  the  canons 
at  your  pleasure.  The  discontent  which  even  your  guarded  opinions 
created  in  the  minds  of  the  laity,  suggested  the  danger  of  disposing 
of  the  new  presentment  in  so  abrupt  and  definite  a  shape.  You  there- 
fore complicated  the  means  by  which  you  attained  the  same  end  ;  and 
you  made  it  incidentally  useful  by  resting  your  judgment  on  the 
d  "^erence  between  vulgar  and  episcopal  morality. 


CONGRATULATORY      EPIBTLK,  37 

The  distinction  briefly  stated,  I  talic  to  be  tliis : 

All  moral  distinctions  relate  exclnsively  to  the  intention.  If 
there  be  no  evil  intention  there  can  be  no  crime.  All  external  acts 
are  purely  indifferent  till  characterized  by  an  intent.  What  then  is 
evil  intention  1 

The  civil  law,  which  is  the  rule  of  lay  conduct,  deduces  the  intent 
from  the  act,  in  the  absence  of  explanations.  If  a  man  take  another's 
property  and  apply  it  to  his  own  use,  it  is  called  stealing.  If  he 
procure  a  note  to  be  applied  in  renewal  of  another,  and  discount  it 
de  novo,  it  is  called  obtaining  money  under  false  pretences.  The 
criminal  intent  is  the  intent  to  do  the  act. 

With  a  Bishop  it  is  different.  Though  he  do  those  acts  with  full 
knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances,  yet  unless  in  addition  to  the  acts 
he  mean  to  commit  a  crime,  or  mean  to  do  an  immorality,  he  is  guilt- 
less. He  has  not  the  intent  criminal.  For  no  mere  act  without 
criminal  intent  should  any  Bishop  be  punished ;  and,  since  such  intent 
can  never  be  proved,  otherwise  than  by  confession,  it  is  plain  that  no 
Bishop  can  ever  be  amenable  to  any  tribunal  for  any  act,  however 
much  the  same  act  would  subject  a  layman  to  punishment.  The 
doing  therefore  of  acts  usually  termed  criminal,  is  no  ground  of  im- 
putation against  the  perfect  "  purity  and  uprightness  "  of  a  Bishop. 
The  apostolic  graces  conferred  at  consecration  are  efficacious  to  re- 
strain or  to  purify  his  spiritual  part — the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart,  whence  proceed  adulteries,  fornications,  theft,  and  such  like  ; 
though  those  graces  are  not  always  so  efficacious  as  to  restrain  the 
bodily  acts  of  the  Bishop — the  law  of  his  members  warring  against 
the  law  of  his  mind. 

Thus,  though  a  Bishop  should  lie  with  his  neighbor's  wife,  he  would 
not  be  guilty  of  adultery,  unless  at  the  time  he  intended  to  covimit 
adultery.  It  is  not  the  looking  on  a  woman  which  is  sinful,  but  the 
looking  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  which  is  adultery  of  the  heart. 
On  this  broad  principle,  not  a  few  of  you  Right  Rev.  Fathers  vindi- 
cated Xha  jyurity  of  intention  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  the  performance 
of  acts,  which  in  the  impure  mind  of  a  layman  would  have  admitted 
of  but  one  interpretation. 

This  view  of  the  moral  law,  as  applied  psychologically  to  inves- 
tigate the  criminality  of  Bishops,  though  strenuously  urged  by  some 
of  you,  was  not  so  fortunate  as  to  succeed  in  arresting  the  great  scan- 
dal of  his  condemnation.  It  was  a  novel  and  somewhat  abstruse  view 
of  the  matter.  It  required  time  to  mature.  It  was  only  on  reflec- 
tion that  it  could  pervade  the  whole  of  your  order. 

The  silent  working  of  truth  has  been  signally  illustrated  by  the 
result  of  the  second  trial  of  Bishop  Doane. 


38  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

Apparently,  only  eight  of  you  came  fully  imbued  with  that  view 
of  episcopal  morality,  and  chiefly  the  same  persons  who  had  voted  for 
the  immunity  of  the  Bishop  of  New-York.  But  the  progress  of  the  dis- 
cussion resulted  in  an  unanimous  vote  of  clearance — which  can  be  ex- 
plained on  no  other  principle ;  and  that  must  now  be  regarded  as  the 
rule  of  church  morals  for  the  Bishops. 

It  is  true  it  is  confined  to  them  ;  for  to  indulge  the  laity  and  the 
inferior  clergy  hi  such  immunities  might  seriously  undermine  the 
morals  of  the  community.  They  cannot  be  ti'usted  to  that  extent,, 
they  must  therefore  rest  subject  to  the  harder  rule   of  vulgar  morals. 

I  pray  your  indulgence  Uight  Rev.  Fathers,  while  I  extract,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  church,  the  full  import  of  this  leading  cane  of  epis- 
copal morals.  Parts  of  the  process  are  obscured  by  the  doubts  of 
some  of  you  as  to  the  rule  of  conduct,  and  by  the  skill  of  others  in 
avoiding  ofiense,  while  pursuing  a  principle.  Thus  alone  is  one  en- 
titled to  interpret  your  apparent  reversal  of  some  of  the  rulings  of 
the  former  Court.  Any  doubts  which  may  have  caused  to  vacillate 
the  conduct  of  some  of  your  weaker  brethren,  must  be  considered  as 
amply  atoned  for  in  the  unanimity  of  the  final  vote.  We  indulge 
the  fond  hope  that  neither  reflection,  nor  the  clamor  of  the  multitude, 
will  cause  them  to  repent  of  this  vigorous  step  in  advance  of  the 
vulgar ;  but  that  as  it  was  the  result  of  deliberation,  it  will  be  main- 
tained with  resolute  consistency. 

Divisions  are  always  to  be  deplored  in  the  Bishops,  but  especially 
on  points  so  vital  as  the  distinction  between  vulgar  and  episcopal 
morals;  and  when  reflection  has  once  produced  unity  or  conviction, 
retracing  the  steps  would  be  most  melancholy  and  disheartening.  By 
this  decision  we  are  relieved  from  the  scandal  of  appearing  to  be  a 
divided  church — a  fact  which  the  Onderdonk  trial  reversed  —  and 
which  the  process  of  Bishop  Doane  was  renewed.  Let  us  cling  to 
this  blessed  unity. 

The  first  deviation  from  the  rules  of  your  former  proceeding  was 
the  prohibition  of  motions  from  members  of  the  Court.  It  was  a 
concession  to  the  prevailing  notion  that  you  were  bound  to  conform 
to  the  methods  of  judicial  procedure;  and  it  strengthened  the  dissatis- 
faction, and  pointed  the  criticism  at  your  final  award.  It  was,  how- 
ever, an  evil  which  grew  out  of  the  accession  of  Bishops  to  the  Court, 
not  on  the  former  trial.  It  was  a  consequence  of  the  then  unsettled 
principles  of  your  procedure ;  and,  though  it  was  more  or  less  ob- 
servable throughout  the  course  till  the  final  step,  yet  that  was  so 
decisive  as  to  leave  an  entirely  satisfactory  impression  of  the  ultimate 
concurrence  of  all  the  Bishops  on  the  vital  questions  involved,  as  well 
of  law  as  of  morals. 


CONGRATULATOKY     EPISTLE.  39 

The  Bishop  of  Maryland,  ever  zealous  in  the  performance  of  that 
part  of  the  duty  of  the  Judge  which  makes  him  counsel  for  the  ac- 
cused, moved  for  the  admission  of  the  committee  of  New  Jersey  to 
lay  its  supplemental  purgation  before  the  Court. 

The  Court  refused  to  entertain  the  motion,  at  the  instance  of  a 
tuember ;  but  gave  the  accused  leave  to  renew  it,  if  so  advised. 

This  was  an  unfortunate  deviation  from  the  established  method  of 
"  pui'ging  "  a  Bishop,  and  resulted  from  an  erroneous  application  in 
an  Ecclesiastioal  Court,  of  the  well-settled,  but  irrelevant  practice  of 
Civil  Courts,  to  remain  passive  till  called  into  activity  by  a  motion 
of  the  parties.  It  was  the  error  of  the  seven  Bishops  now  for  the 
first  time  on  the  Court.  To  their  inexperience  similar  subsequent 
deviations  must  be  ascribed.  They  were  continued  till  they  found 
themselves  within  a  hair's  breadth  of  a  trial ;  from  which  only  a 
speedy  reverting  to  pure  ecclesiastical  principles  saved  them.  Honor 
to  the  courage  Avhich  would  recant  even  such  errors  in  the  flice  of  the 
world. 

These  reversals  were  interpreted  by  the  advocates  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  morals  of  the  vulgar  to  the  Bishops,  as  indicatioiiS  that 
your  accession  to  your  number  had  reversed  your  position.  The 
result  showed  how  futile  is  any  calculation  based  on  the  faithlessness 
of  any  Bishop  to  the  principle  and  immunities  of  the  order. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  took  a  night  to  refiect  on  the  momen- 
tous change  the  order  made  in  his  position.  In  the  morning  he  came 
in,  and  adopted  the  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland,  and  added  to 
it  a  motion  to  dismiss  the  presentment,  as  the  natural  result  of  the 
purgation  effected,  of  the  former  dismissal,  and  of  the  law  declared  by 
the  former  Court. 

If  the  Court  meant  to  adhere  to  the  former  precedent,  the  gi'anting 
of  the  motion  was  too  plain  to  be  resisted.  But  the  seven  Bishops 
were  not  satisfied,  and  the  discussion  proceeded. 

You  resolved  not  to  admit  the  Convention  either  by  the  commit- 
tee or  by  the  Bishops — another  decided  adoption  of  the  principles  of 
secular  proceedings,  which  recognize  only  parties  to  the  record  as  be- 
fore the  Court, 

You,  however,  allowed  the  Bishop  to  read  the  representation  of 
the  committee,  and  professes  your  readiness  to  receive  and  enter  on 
your  record  the  testimony  and  acts  of  the  Convention. 

Your  refusal;  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  to  admit  the  Convention,  was 
justly  felt  and  resented  by  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  as  a  slight. 
Nominally  before  your  bar  as  a  criminal,  he  felt  strong  in  the  inviola- 
bility of  his  episcopal  prerogatives  ;   and  he  scornfully  met  your  re- 


40  CONGIlATULAl'ORY     EPISTLE. 

ception  of  the  acts  and  evidence  of  the  Convention  with  the  taunting 
reply. — Well,  I  suppose  1  must  be  grateful  for  small  favors ;  but 
really  this  is  too  small  to  be  grateful  for. 

Still  it  was  by  no  means  insusceptible  of  a  construction  in  har- 
monv  with  your  former  decision.  You  had  refused  to  admit  the 
Convention  as  a  party  ;  but  you  allowed  the  accused  to  read  their 
acts  and  evidence.  But  the  reading  implied  their  legal  relevancy  to 
the  motion  ;  and  the  previous  Court  had,  while  careless  about  forms, 
established,  by  its  decision,  that  a  diocesan  purgation  was  a  sufficient , 
ground  to  arrest  the  proceeding  of  your  Court  to  trial.  It  is  plainly 
immaterial  how  the  fact  of  the  purgation  gets  before  you.  Whether 
by  the  officers  of  the  Convention,  a  member  of  the  Court,  or  on  the 
motion  of  the  accused,  it  is  the  j^??rya//o»-,  not  the  pari  1/  producing  it, 
on  which  you  act.  If  efficacious  in  the  hands  of  a  member  of  the 
Court,  it  is  not  less  so  when  pleaded  by  the  accused  for  his  protec- 
tion. It  comes  more  in  accordance  with  judicial  analogies  from  him 
than  from  them.  The  petulant  complaint  of  the  accused,  therefore,  is 
hardly  justilied  in  view  of  your  lenient  and  liberal  allowance  of  the 
record  ;  and  we  need  only  look  to  the  result  to  trace  the  effects  of  its 
admission  on  the  judgment  in  the  case. 

It  was  fully  within  your  powers,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  to  exclude 
or  to  admit  it,  since  your  exemption  from  the  rules  propounded  by 
the  Canon  is  established.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  reso- 
lution, declaring  that  you  did  not  recognize  the  right  of  a  Diocese  to 
come  between  your  Court  and  a  Bishop,  presented  canonically  by 
three  Bishops,  leaves  the  case  precisely  where  it  was  before. 

The  New  Jersey  Convention  never  claimed  any  right  as  opposed 
to  a  canonical  presentment  by  three  Bishops  ;  it  had  simply  claimed 
the  right  to  protect  him  from  an  uncanonlcal  persecution.  It  had 
never  claimed,  nor  had  you  allowed  the  right  to  come  between  you  and 
a  canonically  presented  Bishop;  but  you  had  soleuiuly  held  a  purga- 
tion,hy  a  Convention,  to  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  not  trying  a  Bishop. 
That  resolve  you  have  not  revoked,  and  will  never  revoke  or  revise. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  pi-erogatives  of  your  order,  asserted  by  the  Courts, 
and  now  never  to  be  abandoned.  It  forever  puts  an  end  to  the  pos- 
sibility of  trying  any  Bishop  on  the  presentment  of  three  Bishops  : 
for  no  presentment  by  them  can  ever  be  canonical^  and  no  Bishop  is 
so  ignorant  of  his  power  over  his  Convention  as  to  fear  the  result  of 
any  purgation  made  -in  due  ecclesiastical  form.  Your  resolution, 
therefore,  is  only  anijfher  of  those  graceful  concessions  to  the  preju- 
dices of  the  laity,  in  fiivor  of  the  conformity  of  your  proceedino-.s  to 
the  Canons.     Its  well  selected  phraseology  satisfies  their  doubts,  and 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLK. 


41 


leaves  you  free  to  follow  your  good  pleasure.  The  very  unanimity 
was  preeminent  evidence  of  the  adroitness  of  the  language  ;  and  the 
result  of  the  trial  sufficiently  indicates  that  the  resolution  puts  no  in- 
surmountable obstacle  in  the  way  of  terminating  any  trial  in  the  man- 
ner of  that  of  1852.  Y(.>u  may  well  smile  at  the  simplicity  of  the 
laity,  which  reposed  on  that  resolution  as  an  abandonment  of  the  nn- 
canonical  discretion  to  dispense  with  the  Canon,  which  the  decision  of 
1852  seemed  to  them  to  imply  !  ! 

By  your  order  you  allowed  the  accused  to  read  to  you  the  evi- 
dence taken  in  his  exculpation,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  you  to  re- 
solve whether  he  were  too  innocent  to  be  the  subject  of  a  present- 
ment. Nothing  can  be  a  stronger  illustration  of  the  futility  of  the 
Presenters'  appeal  to  the  analogies  of  the  Civil  Courts.  They  proceed 
on  wholly  different  principles.  They  carefully  shut  the  mind  to  all 
evidence  of  any  sort,  except  what  the  parties  put  in  at  the  actual  trial. 
To  read  in  a  newspaper  statement  touching  a  criminal  trial,  vitiates  a 
juror's  verdict ;  and  Lord  Brougham  met  the  sharp  remonstrance  of 
his  bar  for  reading  the  regularly  taken  evidence  before  it  was  sub- 
mitted to  him  by  the  counsel.  The  Bishop  of  New  Hampshire 
states  the  rule  of  ecclesiastical  law.  "  The  Bishops  in  Court  convened 
are  not  bound  in  duty  to  shut  off  fi'om  their  minds  all  knowledge  of 
facts  connected  with  the  history  of  a  proceeding  against  a  brother. 
They  are  bound  in  conscience  to  judge  according  to  knowledge,  how- 
ever the  knowledge  may  have  been  gained." 

The  admission,  therefore,  of  the  acts  of  the  Convention  was  right 
— for  it  was  a  canonical  purgation. 

The  admission  of  the  exparte  evidence  was  also  right,  for  it  gave 
knowledge,  "  however  the  knowledge  may  have  been  gained  !  !"  The 
extreme  jealousy  with  which  the  law  guards  the  civil  judge  froiii 
exparte  bias,  would  be  misplaced  if  applied  to  the  minds  of  Bishops  ; 
for  the  restraining  grace  imparted  at  consecration  effectually  exempts 
them  from  human  frailty.      Ccssante  ratione^  cessat  et  ipso  lex. 

The  admission  of  both,  or  cither,  involved  the  principle  that  they 
were  to  have  some  influence  on  the  result;  and  if  any,  that  must  be 
decisive,  for  it  was  clear  it  could  not  be  countervailed  by  any  acts  or 
(evidence  on  the  part  of  the  presenters.  It  therefore,  in  principle, 
virtually  decided  the  motion  to  dismiss. 

Yet  the  indefatigable  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  pursued  his  argument 
at  exhaustless  length,  and  with  exhausting  labor.  You,  Right  Rev. 
Fathers,  were  witnesses  of  the  devoted  zeal  with  which  he  defended 
in  his  person  the  immunities  of  Bishops.  Your  patience  attested  the  in- 
terest you  took  in  the  result,  where  you  were  both  judges  and  parties. 


42  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE, 

You  know  what  scorn,  and  wrath,  and  execration,  and  sarcasm,  and 
vituperation,  he  poured  on  the  heads  of  his  Lay  persecutors,  and  how 
little  the  august  presence  of  the  Court  caused  him  to  veil  the  expres- 
sion of  similar  fallings  towards  the  Three  Presenters.  You  know 
how  bold  his  bravery,  how  defying  his  language,  how  unreserved  and 
how  reiterated  his  protestations  of  innocence,  how  unmeasured  his 
ascription  of  malice  to  his  accusers,  lay  and  clerical — till  after  the  reply 
of  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  !  ! 

That  Right  Rev.  Father,  one  of  the  Presenters,  was  the  victim 
of  the  delusion  which  measures  the  conduct  of  Bishops  by  the 
rule  of  vulgar,  not  episcopal,  morals — and  holds  them  accountable  to 
the  tribunals  appointed  by  the  Canons  of  our  Church.  On  these 
grounds  he  based  his  appeal,  and  not  without  effect,  in  shaking  some 
of  your  minds  on  those  grave  and  fundamental  questions. 

When  he  closed,  the  impression  permeated  through  the  Court, 
that  there  would  be  a  majority,  of  from  one  to  three,  in  fiivor  of  un- 
doing all  the  last  Court  had  done ;  pulling  down  the  magnificent  for- 
tress of  episcopal  independence,  and  laying  every  diocese  open  to 
the  intruding  steps  of  any  three  Bishops  inclined  to  pry  into  their 
neighbor's  morals. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  quailed  before  a  result  so  disastrous — 
not  to  him,  that  was  nothing — but  to  you,  Right  Rev.  Fathers.  The 
tone  of  his  reply  was  strangely  different  from  the  tone  of  his  first 
appeal.  The  one  was  that  of  confident  and  assumed  victory,  proudly 
trampling  on  his  enemies  already,  in  anticipation,  beneath  his  feet. 
The  other  was  soft,  submissive,  deprecatory,  conciliatory,  kind  and 
loving  to  his  accusers,  who  had  now  become  his  brethren;  mourn- 
fully moving  in  his  prayer  to  the  Court,  that  those  of  you  who  felt 
yourselves  free  from  the  failings,  the  errors,  the  indiscretions  of 
mortals,  should  throw  the  first  stone  at  him,  the  deserted,  oppressed, 
stricken  victim  of  malice  and  misfortune. 

When  the  Court  was  cleared,  and  the  eye  of  the  profuie  world 
removed,  things  took  an  ecclesiastical  turn. 

The  consideration  of  the  motion  to  dismiss,  was  merged  in  a 
scheme  to  escape  the  painful  necessity  of  deciding  it.  The  Right 
Rev.  Father  of  Western  New-York,  ever  fertile  in  resources,  and 
supposed  to  stand  in  peculiarly  brotherly  relations  to  the  Bishop  of 
New  Jersey,  suggested  the  possibility  of  a  confession  by  the  accused, 
such  as  might  disarm  the  numbed  vigor  of  the  prosecution,  and  afford 
an  escape  to  the  wavering  minds  of  the  lovers  of  episcopal  peace  on 
the  bench. 

It  was  emblematic  of  the  approaching  unanimity  which  was  about 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE.  43 

to  remove  the  scandal  of  our  being  a  divided  church,  that  the  Bishop 
of  Pennsylvania  appears  on  the  record  as  the  mover  of  the  resolu- 
tion for  the  committee  to  "  confer  with  the  Presenting  Bishops  and 
the  Respondent,  to  ascertain  whether  they  cannot  come  to  some  under- 
standing which  shall  be  mutually  satisfactory,  and  also  fully  answer 
the  purposes  of  justice."  , 

In  the  profane  Courts,  that  friendly  and  christian  proceeding 
would  be  harshly  called  an  attempt  to  "  compound  a  felony,"  and 
would  be  punishable  in  the  parties,  and  ground  of  impeachment  in 
the  judge.  Bishop  Doane  had  rightly  divined  the  difference  between 
episcopal  and  civil  morals — when  he  first  compounded  the  felony 
with  Deacon.  How  simple  w^ere  the  Presenting  Bishops  to  make 
that  one  of  their  specifications,  the  correctness  of  which  principle  the 
Bishops  unanimously  resolved  ! ! 

The  committee,  unanimously  appointed,  representing  the  imposing 
power  of  the  foreshadowed  inclination  of  the  Court,  sought  the  Pre- 
senters with  a  confession,  manifestly  based  on  the  principle  of  bid- 
ding at  an  auction,  the  lowest  price  first. 

It  grudgingly  admitted,  that  under  the  pressure  of  pecuniary 
difficulties,  but  with  the  purest  motives,  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
had  fallen  into  imprudences. 

The  obdurate  Presenters  did  not  think  that  worth  considering. 

The  Committee  returned  with  the  form  of  another  confession — 
about  halfway  between  the  former  and  the  one  which  graces  your 
record  as  the  trophy  of  the  triumph  of  ecclesiastical  discipline. 

The  Presenters,  among  many  other  things,  suggested  that  the  con- 
fession was  too  evasive  to  be  considered  in  good  faith  :  and  that,  w'ere 
it  more  perfect,  it  could  never  be  a  reason  for  their  withdrawing  the 
presentment — since  in  proportion  to  its  approach  to  perfection,  did 
it  approach  a  plea  of  guilty,  and  make  the  withdrawal  an  absurdity. 
It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  course  of  these  negotiations 
the  fears  of  failure  and  responsibilit)'  were  brought  to  bear,  by  deli- 
cate hints  and  innuendos,  on  the  nerves  of  the  Presenters,  backed 
by  the  suggestion  of  a  strong  vote  by  the  Court — from  more  than 
one  quarter.  They  were  all  repelled,  and  the  Committee  yielded  the 
eflbrt  at  compromise  with  the  Presenters,  and  resolved  to  compro- 
mise themselves  to  the  Court. 

Under  the  stress  of  circumstances,  it  was  plain  that  a  stronger 
confession  alone  could  carry  the  Court  and  save  the  Church  from  the 
disaster  of  a  trial. 

The  conscience  of  the  accused  w^as  appealed  to,  and  a  rigorous 
pressure  yielded  the  third  confession.     In  the  lowest  deep  a   lower 


44  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

deep  was  found ;  and  it  was  well  known  that  the  interests  of  peace 
and  the  Church  were  secure,  ere  the  sun  went  down  on  the  confe- 
rence day. 

After  the  repulse  of  the  Committee  by  the  Presenters,  that  con- 
fession was  made,  which  was  on  the  following  morning  laid  with  the 
report  of  the  Committee  before  the  Court. 

The  Presenters,  with  what  in  a  better  cause  would  have  been 
heroic  fortitude,  firmly  laid  on  your  table  their  sttnii  remonstrance 
against  your  invasion  of  their  prerogative  to  dismiss  or  to  prosecute, 
and  reiterating  their  demand  that,  in  conformity  to  the  Canon,  you 
should  require  the  accused  to  plead  guilty  or  not  guilty,  and  subject 
him  and  the  Church  to  the  needless  scandal  and  humiliation  of  a  tri- 
al :  needless,  Kight  Rev.  Fathers,  since  you  were  resolved  on  his 
acquittal ;  and  dismission  without  trial  was  a  shorter  road  to  the 
same  end. 

You  disregarded  that  demand,  and  set  a  further  example  of  the 
radical  difference  between  ecclesiastical  and  secular  proceedings. 

You  accepted  the  confession  as  at  once  meritorious,  exculpatory, 
penal,  and  penitential.  AVhat  it  confessed  it  atoned  for — what  it 
omitted  it  disproved,  or  justified  as  episcopally  right.  What  it 
evaded,  you  winked  at — what  it  admitted  to  be  possible,  you  agreed 
to  consider  not  done  in  flict. 

The  poverty  of  the  English  language  furnishes  no  word  to  describe 
this  singular  document.  The  friends  of  Bishop  Doane  protest  that  it 
is  not  a  confession — and  that  is  true — for  a  confession  is  a  statement 
of  the  truth  of  facts  charged,  while  this  paper  is  confined  to  inten- 
tions, affections  of  the  mind,  possibilities,  and  exculpatory  circum- 
stances. But  neither  is  it  an  acknowledgment — for  that,  likewise, 
seems  to  be  of  the  like  nature  as  a  confession — to  have  relation  to 
facts  charged,  not  to  the  intentions  with  which  they  were  done,  if 
done  at  all.  It  rather  seems  to  be  a  paper  of  a  peculiarly  ecclesiasti- 
cal character,  modeled  on  the  confession  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  which, 
not  deeming  it  becoming  to  question  the  truth  of  facts  incontroverti- 
bly  true,  yet  confessed,  "  in  excuse  or  palliation,  I  hereby  protest 
before  this  Court,  and  before  Almighty  God,  my  entire  innocence  of 
all  impure  or  unchaste  intention." 

This  paper  should  be  called  Bishop  Doane's  confession  of  his  in- 
nocence. 

On  the  consideration  of  this  paper,  some  apostolic  inspiration 
harmonized  every  difference,  hushed  every  doubt,  removed  every 
scruple,  and  brought  you  all,  with  one  mind  and  with  one  heart,  to 
adopt  the  following  solemn  and  ever  memorable  order : 


C  O  N  G  n  A  T  U  I.  A  T  O  R  Y     E  I'  I  S  T  L  E  .  45 

Whereas,  Vcr^  serious  omburrassnicnts  have  been  thrown  in  the 
way  of  the  action  of  tiiis  Court,  first  l)y  the  postponement  of  the  trial 
of  the  original  Presentment,  and  afterwards  by  the  decree  and  orders 
of  the  Court  of  Bishops  Avhich  assembled  at  Camden  in  October  1852 
and  continued  its  sessions  by  adjournment  at  Burliii'^ton  to  wit : 

"  Whereupon  it  was  decreed,  that 

"  Whereas,  Previous  to  making  of  the  Presentment  now  before 
this  Court,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  had  investigated  most  of 
the  matters  contained  therein,  and  had  determined  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  Presentment,  therefore, 

"  Ordered,  That,  as  to  the  mattei's  thus  acted  upon  by  said  Con- 
vention, this  Court  is  not  called  upon  to  proceed  further, 

"  Whereas,  The  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  stands  pledged  to  inves- 
tigate any  charges  against  its  Bishop  that  may  be  presented  from 
any  responsible  source;  And  whereas,  a  Special  Convention  has  been 
called,  shortly  to  meet,  in  reference  to  the  new  matters  contained  in 
the  Presentment  now  before  this  Court,  therefore 

"  Ordered,  That  this  Court,  relying  upon  the  said  pled<Te  do  not 
now  proceed  to  any  further  action  in  the  premises." 

Which  decree  and  orders  have  been  pleaded  in  bar  to  the  trial  of 
the  present  Presentment. 

And  whereas,  The  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  has 
through  a  committee  of  its  most  influential  and  honorable  laymen 
satisfied  itself,  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  imprudences  in  word 
and  act  of  the  Respondent,  there  was  no  intention  of  crime  or  immo- 
rality on  his  part. 

And  whereas,  The  said  Convention  stands  pledged  to  investio-ate 
any  further  charges  which  may  be  brought  at  any  future  time  from 
any  quarter,  against  said  Respondent,  with  fairness  and  impartiality 

And  whereas,  The  Diocese  of  the  Respondent  is  now  eno-ao-ed  in 
raising  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  thousand  dollars  for 
the  release  from  all  embarrassment  of  St.  Mary's  JIall,  Burlinoton 
College,  and  Riverside,  the  surplus  income  of  such  property,  when 
thus  released,  is  to  be  annually  applied  to  the  liquidation  of  the  re- 
maining  debts  of  the  Respondent. 

And  ivhereas,  The  Respondent  comes  into  Court  and  says  : 

"  The  undersigned,  in  prosecuting  his  plans  of  Christian  education, 
in  connection  with  St.  Mary's  Hall  and  Burlington  College,  found 
that  the  expenses  of  the  enterprise  greatly  exceeded  his  calculations  ■ 
while  the  assistance  on  which  he  had  confidently  relied,  perhaps  too 
sanguinely,  fell  altogether  short  of  ivhai  he  deemed  his  reasonable  ex- 
pectations.    In  this  condition  of  things,  being  entirely  lefl  alone  and 


46  CONGKATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

without  advice,  every  step  which  he  advanced  involved  him  more  ar.d 
more  deeply  in  ^jec;»«"a?'y  embarrassments.  In  endeavoring  to  ex- 
tricate himself  from  these  embarrass77ienls,  he  admits  that  he  made  re- 
presentations which,  at  the  time,  he  believed  to  he  correct ;  but  many  of 
which  turned  out,  in  the  event,  to  be  erroneous.  He  w^as  also  led,  by 
his  too  confident  reliance  on  anticipated  aid,  to  make  promises  which 
he  fully  expected  to  perform  ;  but  which,  experience  has  taught  him, 
were/rtr  too  strongly  expressed.  He  was  also  induced,  for  the  sJike  of 
obtaining  money  to  meet  his  necessities,  to  resort  to  methods,  by  the 
payment  of  exorbitant  interest  on  loans,  which  he  did  not  suppose  were 
in  contravention  of  the  law,  and  luhich  common  usage  seemed  to  him  to 
justify.  He  also,  in  entire  confidence  in  his  ability  to  replace  them, 
made  use  of  certain  trust  funds,  in  a  way  which  he  deeply  regrets ; 
and,  although  they  have  long  been  perfectly  secured,  does  not  now 
justify. 

"  The  embarrassments  here  referred  to  were  followed  by  a  long 
and  well  nigh  fatal  illness ;  which,  withdrawing  him  entirely  from  the 
business  which  he  had  carried  on  alone.,  was  mainly  instrumental  in 
the  entire  failure  in  his  jJccuniary  affairs.  The  perplexity  arising 
from  this  failure,  with  the  protracted  infirmity  which  followed  his  sick- 
ness, made  him  liable  lo  many  errors  and  mistakes,  which  might  easily 
bear  the  appearance  of  intentional  misrepresentations.  In  connection 
with  the  assignment  of  his  projjerty,  he  set  his  name,  under  oath,  to 
an  inventory  of  his  goods,  and  also  to  a  list  of  his  debts,  which  he  be- 
lieved to  be  correct ;  an  act  which,  he  grieves  to  find,  has  given  rise  to 
an  impression  in  the  minds  of  some  that  he  exhibited  an  insensibility 
to  the  awful  sanctions  of  the  oath  of  a  Christian  man.  But,  while  he 
•laments  the  impression,  he  declares  that  his  act  loas  only  done  under 
legal  advice,  and  in  the  firm  conviction  of  its  correctness. 

"  Some  time  after  his  recovery  from  the  illness  above  alluded 
to,  but  while  he  was  still  in  the  midst  of  his  perplexities,  smarting 
under  his  heavy  disappointments,  and  wounded  by  the  imputations 
to  which,  in  some  quarters,  he  was  subjected,  the  letter  of  the  three 
Bishops  came  to  him.  He  has  no  disposition  to  ascribe  to  them 
any  other  than  just  and  proper  motives  in  thus  addressing  him.  But, 
at  the  time  when  he  received  the  communication,  he  viewed  it 
otherwise ;  and,  under  the  strong  excitement  of  the  moment,  penned 
a  pamphlet,  ^rar^s-  oftvhich  he  does  not  now  justify;  and  expressions 
in  which,  in  regard  to  those  brethren,  he  deeply  regrets. 

"  In  reference  to  his  indebtedness,  he  now  renews  the  declaration 
of  intention,  which  he  has  constantly  made,  and  has  acted  on,  to  the 
utmost  of  his  ability,  thus  far,  to 'devote  his  means,  efforts,  and  in 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE 


4.7 


fluericc,  in  dependence  on  God's  blessing,  to  the  payment,  principal 
and  interest,  of  every  just  demand  against  him — an  expeclalion 
ivhlch  there  is  reasonable  hope  of  having  fulfilled,  since  a  committee 
of  the  trustees  and  friends  of  Burlington  College,  by  whom  both 
institutions  arc  now  carried  on,  have  undertaken  an  enterprise,  which 
is  nearly  iiccoraplished,  to  discharge  the  whole  mortgage  debt,  and 
thus  seeur.;  the  property  at  Riverside  and  St.  Mary's  Hall,  with 
that  of  Burlington  College,  to  the  Church  for  ever,  for  the  purposes 
of  Christian  education.  And  this  done,  the  trustees  have  further 
agreed  to  appropriate,  during  his  life,  the  surplus  income  of  both 
institutions  to  the  liquidation  of  all  his  other  debts  incurred  by  him 
in  carrying  on  said  institutions. 

"  That,  in  the  course  of  all  these  transactions,  human  infirmity 
may  have  led  him  into  many  errors,  he  deeply  feels.  He  does  net 
wish  to  justify  or  excuse  them.  If  scandal  to  the  Church,  or  injury 
to  the  cause  of  Christ,  have  arisen  from  them,  they  are  occasion  to 
him  of  mortification  and  regret.  For  these  things,  in  all  humility 
and  sorrow,  before  God  and  man,  he  has  always  felt  himself  liable 
to,  and  willing  to  receive,  the  friendly  reproofs  of  his  brethren  in 
Christ  Jesus,  and  especially  of  the  Blslwps  of  this   Church. 

"G.     W.     DOANE, 

"  Bisho27  of  New  Jersey" 

Ordered,  Therefore,  That  the  Presentment  before  this  Court  be 
dismissed,  and  the  Respondent  be  discharged  without  day. 

That  solemn  record  is  worthy  to  be  transmitted  to  all  time,  as 
the  unanimous  declaration  of  the  Bishops  of  the  United  States  of 
the  morals  and  law  prevailing  in  their  Church  in  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  from  the  advent  of  Christ. 

The  history  of  the  Church  aftbrds  no  other  act  of  ecpial  solemnity, 
sanctioned  with  such  deliberation  and  adopted  with  such   unanimity. 

Right  Rev.  Fathers,  one  deep  feeling  of  proud  exaltation  should 
pervade  your  hearts  at  the  thought,  that  God  allowed  you  to  have 
part  and  lot,  as  humble  instruments,  in  this  great  act. 

It  affirms  the  most  pregnant  meaning  of  the  decree  of  1852 — 
establishing  the  absolute  power  and  independence  of  the  Episcopal 
order,  who  "  hold  from  Jesus   Christ^ 

It  forever  establishes  the  exemption  of  the  Bishops  from  the  rules 
of  vulgar  morality,  and  leaves  them  to  direct  and  spiritual  inspira- 
tions for  their  rule  of  conduct,  which  can  never  be  the  subject  of 
criticism,  much  less  of  judicial  cognisance,  by  laymen. 

Yet  you  have  not  been  unmindful  of  the  episcopal  policy  of 
seeming  to  do  less  than  you  really  do ;  and  substituting  doubts 
and  perplexity  for  entangling  and  unpopular  assertions. 


48  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE. 

The  dull  eye  of  the  laity  will  hardly  penetrate  the  disguise  by 
which  those  acts  are  veiled.  For  your  eye  it  may  be  permitted,  to 
lift  the  veil  and  explore  the  mystery  of  the  process,  and  the  result. 

The  order  is  prefaced  by  a  recital.  It  must  be  intended  to  ifp- 
pear  to  contain  the  reasons  of  the  decree. 

The  first  recital  is  "  that  very  serious  embarrassments  have  been 
thrown  in  the  way  of  the  action  of  this  Court  by  the  postponement 
of  the  trial  of  the  original  presentment." 

The  inquirer  will  in  vain  strive  to  penetrate  the  relation  of  that 
f-ict  to  the  decree.  You  mean  to  insinuate,  that  the  postponement 
was  the  cause — though,  in  fact,  only  the  occasion  and  pretext  of  the 
refusal  to  proceed  with  the  trial  in  1852.  You  still  find  it  very 
necessary  to  keep  on  the  cover  of  bad  reasons  to  screen  that  most 
salutary  act  of  vigor. 

You  proceed  to  add — "  and  afterwards,  by  the  decree  and  orders 
of  the  Court  of  1852  " — which  you  recite,  with  the  statement  that 
they  had  been  pleaded  in  bar  of  the  trial. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  so  important  a  matter  as  a  plea  in  bar  of  that 
former  order  should  not  appear  on  your  record,  any  where  prior  to 
this  order ;  for  the  skeptical  and  profane  will  suggest  that  it  was 
thrown  in  by  you,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  as  a  makeweight.  Still  its 
position,  as  one  of  the  grounds  of  your  decree,  is  significant  of  a  rei- 
teration of  the  validity  of  that  order  by  an  unanimous  vote.  It  con- 
verts an  order  passed  by  a  vote  of  one  into  the  law  of  the  church  by 
unanimous  consent.  For  however  allowable  it  may  be  to  disguise 
the  reasons  of  a  judgment  in  an  opinion,  the  recital  of  a  fact  in  a 
decree,  as  the  ground  of  it  affirms,  that  in  point  of  law,  it  is  a  sufficient 
ffi-oimd.  To  say  that  whereas  a  former  judgment  has  been  pleaded, 
therefore  we  give  judgment  for  the  defendant,  means  in  law  that  the 
validity  of  the  plea  is  alloived.  If  other  pleas  are  in  like  manner 
recited,  that  does  not  at  all  weaken  the  allowance  of  any,  but  embraces 
them  all.  Thus  the  recital  of  this  plea  in  bar  of  the  order  of  1852, 
and  the  word  therefore  m  your  order  of  1853,  involves  the  ratifi- 
cation of  that  former  judgment,  and  asserts  the  validity  of  the  plea 
as  a  bar. 

You  further  recite  the  record  of  purgation,  which  had  satisfied 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  "  im- 
prudence of  the  Bishop  in  word  or  act,  there  was  not  intention  of  crime 
or  immorality  on  his  part." 

The  same  significance  attaches  to  this  recital.  You  did  not  mean 
in  so  solemn  an  act  to  recite  irrelevant  or  impertinent  facts.  You 
had  admitted  this  purgation  to  be  proved  as  relevant  to  the  motion 


CONORATULATORT     EPISTLE.  49 

to  dismiss.  Its  recital  on  the  judgment  can  only  mean  that  it  is  a 
reason  and  ground  of  the  decree  which  follows.  Thus  this  great  prin- 
ciple of  the  Court  of  1852,  established  by  so  close  a  vote,  you  now 
have  the  happiness  of  placing  behind  the  impregnable  bulwark  of  an 
unanimous  vote  of  the  Bishops. 

We  have  previously  enjoyed  together,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  the 
exquisite  tact  displayed  in  reconciling  the  suspicious  minds  of  sticklers 
for  Canon  law,  to  the  maintenance  of  the  principle,  by  passing  a  re- 
solution apparently  repudiating,  but  really  not  excluding  it  at  all ! ! 
Each  party  leaves  your  presence  contented,  one  with  the  illusory 
shadow,  the  other  with  the  substance  of  power  and  victory  ! ! 

These  things  are  all  very  well  as  incidents  to  the  great  triumph. 
But  the  real  matter  of  moment,  the  pith  of  this  proceeding,  lies  in 
the  principles  of  morals  asserted  and  sustained  as  the  basis  of  the 
moral  law  of  Bishops.  That  lies  hid  in  the  confession  of  the  accused, 
its  legal  relation  to  the  presentment  and  to  the  order  of  dismissal. 
Fully  to  appreciate  its  power,  we  must  consider  them  all  in  their 
relations. 

The  confession  is  alleged  as  one  of  the  facts  on  the  co?mderaHon 
whereof  the  Court  dismissed  the  Presentment.  It  means  therefore  that 
the  fact  and  contents  of  the  confession  justified  the  Court  in  that  step, 
in  logic  and  law.  JIoio  it  so  justified  them  is  not  asserted.  It  is 
to  be  implied,  and  what  it  is,  is  the  real  pith  of  the  proceeding. 

Now  first  a  confession,  if  it  be  a  reason  for  dismissing  a  present- 
ment at  all,  can  be  so  only  when  it  really  and  fully  meets  the  whole 
facts  charged.  I  do  not  say,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  without  the 
confession  you  could  not  dismiss.  On  the  contrary,  that  is  involved 
in  the  fact  of  your  absolute  discretion  to  act  under  the  higher  law. 
But  if  it  only  meet  part,  it  can  be  no  ground  for  dismissing  the  residue. 
Your  judgment.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  is  that  this  confession  is  a  legal 
reason  for  dismissing  this  presentment,  and  that  is  conclusive  of  the 
fact  that  such  is  the  relation  between  the  two.  > 

But  what  that  relation  is,  it  gravely  concerns  all  men  to  know. 
Now  plainly,  we  are  here  again  on  one  of  those  striking  peculiari- 
ties of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence,  to  w^hich  the  civil  court  offers  no 
parallel. 

In  those  Courts,  if  a  prisoner  confess  certain  facts  less  than  the 
whole  charge,  the  trial  proceeds,  and  they  are  given  in  evidence  to  the 
jury  with  the  other  evidence.  They  form  part  of  the  general  mass 
on  which  the  verdict  is  rendered ;  and,  a  verdict  of  acquittal  or  con- 
demnation follow  the  sufficiency  or  insufficiency  of  the  evidence,  in- 
cluding the /acts  confessed. 

4 


50  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

It  is  clear  you  did  not  treat  the  confession  as  evidence. 

If  the  confession  be  generally  of  the  trnth  of  the  indictment,  then 
it  is  equivalent  to  a  plea  of  guilty,  and  the  Court  proceeds — not 
to  dismiss  it,  but — to  render  judgment  of  condemnation  against  the 
prisoner. 

It  is  equally  plain  you  did  not  regard  this  confession  as  any  plea 
of  guilty. 

It  indeed  falls  within  no  known  category  of  legal  proceedings, 
for  there,  just  in  proportion  as  the  confession  is  perfect,  just  in  that 
proportion  does  it  absolutely  prevent  the  possibility  of  any  other 
judgment  than  a  condemnation.  Yet  you  followed  this  one  by  an 
order  to  go  without  day. 

The  reason  lies  in  the  simple  fact  that  the  accused  was  a  Bisftojh 
and  as  such  entitled  to  his  benefit  of  clergy  ;  that  great  canonical  pri- 
vilege^ based  on  the  principle  that  acts  punishable  in  a  layman,  were 
no  crimes  in  a  clergyman,  and  when  the  facts  were  proved  or  con- 
fessed, the  consequences  was  not  condemnation  and  judgment,  but 
arrest  of  judgment  and  discharge.  It  is  this  great  principle  that  you 
have  asserted  for  your  order.  The  profound  reason  of  the  law  is, 
that  acts  criminal  in  a  layman  are  not  criminal  in  a  clergyman.  The 
one  is  to  be  judged  by  vulgar,  the  other  by  episcopal  criteria ;  and  the 
principle  of  the  distinction  is,  as  I  have  above  explained,  and  the 
only  intelligible  one,  that  crime  consisting  in  intention,  and  the  Bishop 
being  protected  by  the  special  grace  of  the  succession,  the  fact  does 
not  involve  the  intention  to  coiximit  sin.  It  is  therefore  not  suscepti- 
ble of  being  proved  to  be  criminal,  since  proof  must  ever  be  confined 
to  outward  acts,  and  they  can  never  prove  more  than  the  doing  of  the 
act.  They  can  never  show  it  was  done  with  the  intent  to  commit  sin, 
and  till  then  there  is  no  guilt.     This  is  episcopal  morality. 

Read  by  its  light,  the  confession  and  the  judgment  became  lumi- 
nous. Judged  by  any  other,  they  are  both — to  human  reason — lame 
and  impotent  conclusions.  It  is  this  great  primitive  principle  of  the 
clerical  code  which  your  judgment  has  affirmed  in  the  midst  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  as  the  law  of  the  church  now. 

I  pray  you.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  bear  with  me  while  I  demonstrate 
the  reality,  the  extent  and  the  value  of  your  decision. 

The  principle  of  the  privilegium  clericale  was  devised  and  de- 
veloped in  the  palmy  ages  of  the  clerical  order.  It  sprang  from  the 
central  conception  of  a  priesthood  endowed,  by  specially  effectual 
graces,  to  restrain  them  from  sin,  purifying  their  minds  from  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  woi'ld,  in  whose  midst  they  were  for  its  guidance,  instruc- 
tion and  example.  Thus  restrained,  it  was  plain  they  could  not  break 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTI.  K, 


51 


through  the  barriers  hiterposed  by  a  Divine  power  between  thcni  and 
the  commission  of  evil.  Whatever  they  did  was  by  the  very  act 
sanctified  to  the  eyes  of  men.  They  were  bound  to  believe  the  acts, 
which  in  laymen  would  be  flagrant  crimes,  in  clergymen  innocently 
done.  The  outward  act  alone  was  cognizable  by  the  eye  of  flesh 
the  spiritual  intent  was  revealed  to  the  eyes  of  the  Supreme  alone  • 
and  he  had  promised  to  illuminate,  and  purify,  and  sustain  them.  It 
was  therefore  plain  that  no  human  external  proof  could  disprove  this 
internal  purity.  It  were  iniquity,  worse  than  the  crime,  to  punish  a 
servant  of  God  for  doing  an  external  act  with  all  "  purity  and  upright- 
ness "  of  heart.  It  were  presumption  for  laymen  to  assume  authority 
to  pronounce  a  priest  guilty.  The  fact  of  the  consecration  was  his 
sufficient  voucher. 

It  was  therefore  the  law  of  the  church,  adopted  as  the  law  of  the 
land,  that  if  a  clerk  were  indicted,  he  might  be  claimed  by  the  Bishop 
or  himself  plead  the  fact  of  his  clerkship  or  orders,  and  thereupon 
immediately  all  proceedings  were  arrested.  Or  the  clerk  could  stand 
his  trial  as  an  ordinary  man,  take  the  chances  of  an  acquittal  on  the 
principles  of  evidence  applicable  to  the  laity ;  and  upon  failure  and 
conviction  by  that  evidence^  claim  his  benefit  of  clergy ;  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  however  conclusive  the  proof  may  have  been,  humanly 
considered,  it  ought  to  weigh  nothing  against  the  conclusive  presump- 
tion of  his  purity,  founded  on  his  ordination. 

A  learned  judge  remarks — 

"This  latter  way  is  most  usually  practised,  as  it  is  more  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Court  to  have  the  crime  previously  ascertained  by 
confession  or  the  verdict  of  a  jury."  By  crime  he  means,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  law,  fact. 

It  was  this  course.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  you  thought  proper 
to  pursue. 

"  Afterwards  "—our  legal  author  proceeds,  in  the  tone  of  a  moralist 
of  the  vulgarian  school — "  indeed,  it  was  considered  that  education  and 
learning  were  no  extenuations  of  guilt,  but  quite  the  reverse." 

He  then  gives  the  several  steps  by  which  this  priceless  immunity 
of  the  clergy  was  frittered  away,  till  finally  it  was  wholly  abolished. 
On  that  disastrous  result,  in  the  spirit  of  his  whole  comment,  he 
remarks — 

"  From  the  whole  of  this  detail  we  may  collect,  that  however  in 
times  of  ignorance  and  superstition,  that  monster  in  true  policy  may 
for  a  while  subsist,  of  a  body  of  men  residing  in  the  bowels  of  a  state 
and  yet  independent  of  its  laws,  yet  when  learning  and  rational  reli- 
gion have  a  little  enlightened  mens  minds,  society  can  no  longer  en- 
dure an  absurdity  so  gross  as  must  destroy  its  very  fundamentals/ 


52  CONGRATULATORT     EPISTLE. 

It  is  this  "  little  enlightenment "  Eight  Rev.  Fathers,  which  in 
the  twilight  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  in  the  mists  of  English  pre- 
judices, stripped  your  order  of  this  great  protection.  So  disastrous  is 
the  subjection  of  the  Church  to  the  dominion  of  the  State  where  ra- 
tionalism pervades  religion.  It  was  reserved  for  the  greater  enlight- 
enment of  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  for  the  spiritual  free- 
dom of  this  Republic,  for  your  clear  and  spiritual  conceptions,  and 
your  hands  untrammelled  by  the  civil  supremacy  in  matters  ecclesias- 
tical, t(,)  turn  your  eyes  to  the  meridian  splendor  of  your  order  in  the 
tenth  century,  and  realize,  by  the  most  formal  and  authentic  act  in  this 
day,  the  proudest  prerogative  of  that  earlier  and  purer  day — the  privi- 
lege of  the  clergy  to  be  exempt  from  crime  and  its  consequence — 
punishment. 

Yet  you  blended  discretion  with  your  vigor.  Feeling  it  to  be 
wise  for  a  "  body  of  men  to  reside  in  the  bowels  of  a  state,  yet  inde- 
pendent of  its  laws,"  yet  you  justly  feared  the  privilege  itself  might 
fall  by  its  too  great  extension.  You  remembered  that  it  had  in  early 
ages  been  perverted  from  its  legitimate  purpose  and  principle — the 
protection  of  the  ordained  clergy  ;  and  that  it  was  the  extension  of  its 
benefit  to  not  merely  the  inferior  clergy,  but  to  even  little  subordinate 
offices  of  the  Church  or  clergy,  and  even  to  many  totally  laymen, 
which  contributed  to  bring  it  into  discredit  and  produced  its  abroga- 
tion. You  wisely  avoided  that  extreme.  You  resolved  to  assert,  in 
its  full  efficacy,  the  benefit  of  clergy  for  the  episcopal  order,  but  to 
leave  the  inferior  clergy  subject  to  the  opei'ation  of  the  vulgar  rules 
of  evidence  and  law. 

You  acted  wisely  and  consistently  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  greater 
spiritual  grace  conferred  on  a  bishop  at  consecration,  secures  him 
from  sin  under  greater  liberty  and  temptation,  than  the  inferior  graces 
of  Presbyters  and  Deacons  could  possibly  resist. 

Like  the  modern  judges,  you  preferred  to  have  the  real  extent  of 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  ascertained  before  the  benefit  of 
clergy  should  be  imparted. 

This  is  the  office  performed  by  Bishop  Doane's  confession  of  his 
innocence  of  intention  of  crime  or  immorality. 

It  must  be  treated  as  a  statement  of  the  substance  of  the  charges 
in  the  presentment,  in  the  eye  of  the  Episcopal  morality.  Whatever 
the  specifications  might  imply  in  a  layman,  they  in  a  Bishop  imply 
no  more  than  is  set  down  in  the  confession.  To  suppose  the  confes- 
sion to  stop  short  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  charges,  and  yet  to 
have  been  made  by  the  court  a  ground  of  judgment  touching  the  whole, 
would  be  hardly  respectful :  and  indeed  more  than  one  of  you,  with 
tha   "andor  which  befits  a  tribunal  f  "erned  by  the  higher  law  of  cha- 


CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE.  dS 

rity,  kindly  intimated  to  the  Presenters  that  they  had  better  accept 
the  confession,  since  it  covered  all  they  could  probably  prove.  The 
Presenters  had  stated  that  they  stood  ready  to  prove  all  they  had 
alleged,  and  it  is  scarcely  to  be  presumed  that  their  brethren  would 
hesitate  to  give  them  credit  for  truth. 

Thus  treated  as  a  means  of  measuring  lay  crimes  by  episcopal 
morals,  it  will  serve  as  a  key  for  future  translations,  a  scale  of  rela- 
tive guilt  or  innocence,  a  barometer  of  the  weight  or  lightness  of 
criminal  pressure,  of  external  deeds  upon  the  inner  conscience  of  the 
layman  and  the  Bishop.  It  will  serve  as  a  general  unit  to  estimate 
the  specific  gravity  of  lay  and  clerical  crimes. 

It  starts  from  the  true  point  of  view.  It  discards  acts  and  facts, 
and  confines  itself  to  a  confession  of  "such  error  as  his  conscience 
accused  him  of."  We  are  thus  at  once  transported  from  the  world 
of  external  actions  to  the  inner  and  invisible  domain  of  the  episcopal 
conscience.  Indeed  it  is  observable,  that  upon  the  Conventional  pur- 
gation there  seemed  to  be  little  or  no  dispute  with  the  presenters 
about  the  facts  and  acts  charged  to  have  occurred  or  to  have  been 
committed.  The  purgators  chiefly  directed  their  mquiries  to  the 
intention.  The  Protest  and  Appeal  chiefly  confines  itself  to  the 
same  internal  view,  while  narrating  most  of  the  facts  charged.  The 
Confession  is  another  aspect  of  the  same  view. 

The  Presentment  asserted  that  certain  specific  acts  had  been  done, 
which  were  immoral  and  criminal. 

The  purgation  exculpated  "him  from  any  charge  of  crime  or  im- 
morality made  against  him."  This — interpreted  by  the  vulgar  rule 
of  law,  would  meaji — he  had  not  done  the  acts  charged  against  him. 
But  the  recital  of  your  order  puts  it  in  its  proper  ecclesiastical  form. 

"  And  whereas  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  has  ....  satisfied 
itself  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  imprudences  in  word  and 
act  of  the  respondent,  there  was  no  intention  of  crime  or  immorality 
on  his  part.'''' 

We  presume,  the  "  imprudences  in  word  and  act "  are  to  be 
interpreted,  the  yac^s  charged  in  the  presentment,  to  which  the  confes- 
sion assigns  their  moral  import  in  the  eyes  of  Bishops. 

The  Presentment,  the  bungling  work,  it  is  understood,  of  a  Bal- 
timore scrivener,  written  wholly  on  the  vulgarian  theory,  contents 
itself  with  narrating  the  various  acts  done  by  the  Bishop  of  New 
Jersey,  which  acts  it  charges  to  have  been  immoral  and  criminal  in 
a  christian  Bishop.  Your  exposition  of  the  Law  of  episcopal  morals 
demonstrates  the  shallowness  of  the  idea  which  pervades  its  specifica- 
tions, in  which  no  sort  of  notice  is  taken  of  the  peculiar  intent,  re- 
quisite to  '"ove  and  constitute  criminality  in  a  Bishop. 


54  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

The  1st  specification  cliarges  him  with  having  contracted  debts 
■without  any  reasonable  prospect  of  being  able  to  pay  them. 

The  2d  with  falsely  pretending  those  debts  were  incurred  in 
his  venture  for  christian  education  at  Burlington. 

The  3d,  4th,  5th,  6th,  7th  and  8th  with  having  procured  sundry 
notes  from  several  persons,  at  many  different  times,  under  the  pro- 
mise to  apply  them  to  renew,  and  not  to  increase  the  responsibilities 
of  the  persons  advancing  them  to  him ;  but  that  he  did  use  them 
to  increase  and  not  to  diminish  or  to  renew  the  existing  liabilities — 
which  acts  the  law  calls  the  c7-ime  of  getting  money  under  false  pre- 
tences— or  clieating. 

The  9th,  10th  and  15th  with  obtaining  money  upon  false  represen- 
tations of  the  value  and  adequacy  of  the  security  given  or  to  be  given. 

The  11th,  12th  and  16th  with  obtaining  trust  moneys  and  applying 
them  to  purposes  other  than  the  trust,  for  his  own  use. 

The  1 4th  with  drawing  checks  in  payment  of  debts,  when  he  had 
no  funds  to  meet  them. 

The  17th  with  borrowing  many  thousands  of  dollars  when 
utterly  insolvent,  and  knowing  himself  to  be  so,  without  disclosing 
that  flict. 

The  18th  with  inducing  a  man  to  refrain  from  presenting  an 
order  on  a  fund,  under  promise  of  meeting  it  himself;  and  of  failing 
to  pay  and  afterwards  assigning  the  fund,  i.  e.  with  cheating  the  man 
out  of  his  money. 

The  19th  and  20th  with  forging  Horace  Binney's  name  for  $1000 
and  then  falsely  stating  he  did  it  by  authority — for  the  benefit  of 
the  Church. 

The  21st  with  getting  work  done  on  promise  of  security — and 
failing  to  perform  it. 

The  22d  with  getting  possession  of  a  security  of  a  lady,  and 
converting  it  to  his  own  use  without  her  consent. 

The  23d  and  26th  with  intimidating,  by  violence  and  threat,  two 
men  froBi  bringing  certain  charges  before  the  Convention  and  the 
Grand  Jury. 

The  27lh  and  28th  with  swearing,  knowingly,  falsely  to  the  value 
of  his  property,  and  to  a  list  of  debts,  omitting  many  and  large 
debts. 

The  29th  with  accepting  the  use  of  articles  sold  for  the  benefit  of 
his  creditors,  and  bought  in  at  gross  under-value. 

The  30th  with  numerous  and  grave  false  statements  in  his  Protect 
and  Appeal,  known  to  be  false. 

The  31st  with  being  drunk  on  one  occasion — frequently  drinking 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE.  55 

in  an  excessive  and  unbecoming  manner — and  immoderate  and  sump- 
tuous living. 

All  these  specifications  state  facts  and  acts  cognizable  by  the  ex- 
ternal senses  and  capable  of  material  proof. 

They  were  most  of  them  drawn  on  the  strange  and  exploded  suj)- 
position  that  the  following  passages  of  St.  Paul  are,  at  this  day,  the 
law  of  Bishops  : 

"  A  Bishop  then  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
vigilant,  sober,  of  good  behavior,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach : 
not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre  ;  but  jjatient ; 
not  a  brawler,  not  covetous." 

"  For  a  Bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  a  steward  of  God  :  not  self- 
willed,  not  soon  angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to 
filthy  lucre  ;  but  a  lover  of  hospitality,  a  lover  of  good  men,  sober, 
just,  holy,  temperate." 

With  the  exception  of  "  being  the  husband  of  one  wife  "  and 
"  given  to  hospitality,"  there  is  scarcely  a  requisite  set  down  in  those 
passages  which  the  Presenters  did  not  charge  the  respondent  with 
violating. 

Accompanied  by  the  sound  exposition  given  in  your  judgment, 
the  passage  may  perhaps  be,  without  much  danger,  submitted  to  lay 
inspection  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  It  was  always  known  that  episcopos 
is  used  indiscriminately  for  presbyter,  and  what  the  commentators  call 
Bishop.  But  our  bungling  translators  have  not  carefully  divined 
when  the  same  word  meant  one,  and  when  the  other.  It  is  now 
plain,  from  your  decision,  that  the  word  should  have  been  here  trans- 
lated presbyter,  and  not  Bishop — a  signal  instance  of  the  danger  of 
translations  into  the  vulgar  tongue.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  you  will 
now,  I  trust,  feel  the  expediency  of  relieving  the  Consecration  of 
Bishops  from  so  serious  an  error,  and  expunge  those  passages  from 
that  holy  formulary,  as  calculated  to  mislead  its  recipients. 

Still  so  much  evil  has  been  done  by  the  too  free  and  frequent 
citation  of  passages  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  which  unlearned  and  ignorant 
men  have  wrested  to  their  own  injury  and  your  annoyance,  that  I  fear 
to  go  with  a  multitude  to  do  evil.  I  await  with  anxiety  the  period 
when  it  may  be  safe  for  you  to  exercise  your  absolute  prerogatives, 
by  forbidding  the  reading  or  quotation  of  Scripture  in  the  language  of 
the  people  entirely — unless  by  the  special  permission  of  the  Bishop. 

I  now,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  invoke  your  attention  to  the  import 
of  the  confession  of  the  respondent — of  such  eiTor  as  his  conscience 
accused  him  of — touching  the  matter  of  the  presentment. 

"  The  undersigned,  in  prosecrUing  his  plans  of  Christian  education. 


56  CONGRATULATOKY      EPISTLE. 

in  connection  with  St.  Mary's  Hall  and  Burlington  College,  found 
that  the  expenses  of  the  enterprise  greatly  exceeded  his  calculations; 
while  the  assistance  on  which  he  had  confidently  relied,  2>erhaps  too 
sangui7iely ,  fell  altogether  short  of  what  he  deemed  his  reasonable  ex- 
pectations." 

This  is  the  episcopal  equivalent  of  the  first  specification.  What 
were  his  plans  1  Why  plainly,  in  the  eye  of  episcopal  morality,  that 
was  immaterial.  The  object  covered  and  consecrated  every  plan. 
Christian  education  could  not  be  purchased  too  dearly.  It  was  im- 
material whether  his  plans  were  prudent  or  imprudent,  feasible  or 
chimerical,  practicable  or  impracticable,  rashly  or  rationally  specula- 
tive, risking  his  own  property  or  that  of  others,  were  within  his  own 
means,  or  vastly  beyond  it. 

On  what  were  his  calculations  of  the  expenses  based.  On  his 
means  of  meeting  them,  stopping  when  they  stopped  ;  or  on  the 
chances  of  gain  by  the  enterprise  ?  This,  too,  seems  to  be  immate- 
rial ;  for  it  is  not  stated  as  an  element  on  which  the  morals  of  the 
transaction  are  to  be  estimated,  nor  one  of  M'hich  the  conscience  of 
the  Bishop  took  cognizance. 

The  assistance  on  which  he  had  relied  confidently,  is  left  blank. 
It  •  is  immaterial  whether  any  had  been  promised,  or  how  much,  if 
any ;  or  whether  by  responsible  or  irresponsible  persons  ;  or  whether 
he  had  confidently  relied  on  the  assistance  of  Divine  Providence  in- 
terposing miraculously  to  rescue  him  from  imprudences  so  great  that 
insanity  or  dishonesty  were  the  only  alternatives  which  a  man  of  the 
world  would  have  been  allowed  to  choose  between.  It  fell  short  of 
what  he  deemed  his  reasonable  expectations  ;  but  on  what  grounds 
his  expectations  were  based,  and  what  they  were,  are  in  like  manner 
left  blank.  Whether  they  were  such  as  a  prudent  and  Christian  man 
could,  with  good  conscience,  rely  on  and  deem  them  reasonable,  or 
they  were  the  chances  of  the  interposition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  or 
the  whole  company  of  the  faithful,  or  the  army  of  martyrs  to  their 
faith  in  him,  is  left  entirely  out  of  the  confession. 

The  hypothesis  of  the  specification  is,  that  Bishop  Doane  wantonly 
contracted  debts  beyond  his  actual  or  his  reasonable  j^rospective 
means  of  payment :  and  that,  in  the  view  of  the  vulgar  morality  of 
the  world,  was  immoral.  It  was  simply  obtaining  other  people's 
money  to  speculate  with  it,  for  his  benefit,  at  their  risk.  The  object 
of  the  speculation  being  through  the  instrumentality  of  Christian  edu- 
cation for  young  ladies  and  gentlemen  in  a  very  expensive  manner, 
hardly  purged  the  dishonesty  of  the  transaction  in  the  views  of  the 
viorld. 


CONGRATULATORY     KPISTLB.  57 

Had  it  appeared  that  responsible  men  had  promised  to  aid  liim 
in  the  event  of  disaster,  or  responsible  churches  offered  to  contribute, 
that  would  have  changed  the  case  in  the  view  of  the  world  and  of 
the  presenters.  But  the  confession  leaves  the  case  exactly  where  the 
specification  left  it — a  speculation  at  other  people's  expense,  for  the 
respondent's  pecuniary  benefit,  to  be  worked  out  through  the  spiritual 
benefit  of  christian  education  to  certain  youths.  The  assistance  ex- 
pected too  sanguinely  remains  a  shadow — a  dream,  a  guess — nothing. 
As  the  Confession  leaves  it,  it  was  left  before  by  the  Protest  and 
Appeal. 

"  To  go  on  at  such  a  rate  of  course  involved  a  debt.  The  mider- 
signed  had  faith  in  Ood^  and  merging  in  the  work  his  whole  re- 
sources and  his  credit^  it  went  on.  As  prosperity  returned  to  the 
Country,  patronage  flowed  in  upon  St.  Mary's  Hall.  And  then  suc- 
cess became  embarrassing.  Buildings  were  to  be  erected,  and  fixtures 
and  furniture  were  to  be  supplied ;  and  to  do  this,  there  was  no 
resource  but  current  income  and  pledge  of  credit.  Of  course  the 
debt  increased.  To  provide  fer  it,  j)aper  must  be  used.  To  be  pro- 
cured, it  must  be  paid  for.  And  then,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  its 
discount  must  be  had  at  extra  cost." 

It  is  plain  that  the  whole  plan  was  a  spiritual  speculation,  under- 
taken at  the  impulse  of  a  predestined  necessity ;  that  every  step  was 
the  consequence  of  an  imperative  and  fatal  "  must ;"  and  that  every 
thing  was  done,  because  from  all  time  the  thmgs  "  were  to  be." 

Nay — the  girls'  school  was  predestined  to  bring  forth  a  boys' 
school. 

"  The  acceptance  of  a  christian  girls'  school  created  a  demand  for 
a  christian  boys'  school.  In  1845  special  circumstances"  (did  it  thun- 
der on  the  left,  or  how  many  vultures  were  seen,  in  what  part  of  the 
sky  1)  "  seemed  to  indicate  that  the  time  had  come  for  such  an  under- 
taking. A  movement  was  then  made  for  a  school  for  boys,  such  as 
St.  Mary's  Hall  was  already  for  girls.  The  proposition  met  with 
signal  favor.  It  was  at  once  said,  why  not  make  it  a  college'?  The 
time  is  propitious.  At  any  rate  (the  usual  rate  of  the  Bishop's  pro- 
ceedings) procure  a  charter,  and  use  it  when  you  are  ready.  A  char- 
ter was  procured.  A  site  was  purchased.  The  pressure  of  patronage 
forced  on  the  work  before  its  time,  so  that  at  the  end  of  two  years 
the  catalogue  enrolled  one  hundred  and  twenty  students.  There  was 
no  endowment.  There  was  no  monied  patronage.  Everything  loas  to 
be  done,  and  nothing  to  do  it  with.  Everything  was  done — and  done 
loith  nothing.^'' 

An  excellent  description  of  omnipotence. 


58  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE. 

"  And  the  earth  was  without  form  and  void ;  and  darkness  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  deep.  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon 
the  face  of  the  waters.  And  God  said,  let  there  be  light — and 
there  was  light ! ! !" 

"  The  assistance  on  which  he  had  confidently  relied  "  was — that 
the  sky  would  fall  and  he  might  catch  larks  enough  to  repay  the 
money  borrowed  by  a  pledge  of — credit;  and  if  not — why,  the 
money  was  planted  in  God's  vineyard  and  would  bring  forth  fruit 
some  of  these  days  in  Chinstian  education  !  ! 

Nothing,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  can  better  illustrate  the  difference 
between  vulgar  and  episcopal  morality.  Those  things  in  a  man  of 
business  would  have  been — a  clear  case  of  fraudulent  bankruptcy. 
In  a  Bishop  it  has  been  held  by  you  to  be  perfectly  innocent.  The 
confession  does  not  term  it  even  imprudence,  and  you  bid  the  vic- 
tim of  such  disappointments,  on  such  plans,  to  go,  without  day,  in 
peace. 

The  reason.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  is  as  plain  as  the  fact.  Paley 
says,  the  good  or  evil  of  an  action  is  to  be  estimated  by  its  results 
generalized  and  in  the  long  run.  Now,  the  acts  of  a  Bishop  are  no 
criterion  for  any  one  less  exalted.  No  layman  has  any  right  to 
say,  what  a  Bishop  may  do  I  may  do.  Confining  it  then  to  Bishops, 
it  is  clear  that,  to  create  such  a  school  as  St.  Mary's  Hall  for  the  pro- 
motion of  Christian  education,  would  in  the  long  run.  and  if  gene- 
ralized, produce  more  good  than  any  given  amount  of  money  requi- 
site to  effect  it,  left  in  the  pockets  of  its  owners  for  merely  secular 
purposes.  From  the  height  of  Heaven  the  small  differences  of  mine 
and  thine  in  the  paltry  pelf  of  this  world  vanish  by  the  law  of  moral 
perspective.  Who  could  enter  the  Chapel  of  the  Holy  Innocents 
and  see  those  lovely  angels  pi\aying  for  the  world,  and  lifting  the 
soul  aloft  on  the  wings  of  inspired  chaunts,  and  not  feel  that  in  com- 
parison with  such  blessedness  it  is  utterly  immaterial  that  two  or 
three  poor  widows  have  been  reduced,  the  funds  of  the  Diocese  trans- 
planted and  dead,  and  two  or  three  Jews  and  brokers  depleted  and 
punished  a  little  before  their  time.  On  Paley's  principle  the  matter 
is  2^1ain,  b}^  the  law  of  pi'oportion.  For  the  value  of  a  soul  being 
infinite,  and  all  worldly  goods  being  finite ;  it  is  clear  that  they  all 
might  be  sacrificed,  with  great  gain,  for  the  salvation  of  one  soul — a 
portion  for  the  Christian  education  of  many.  Even  if  this  principle 
be  doubtful — yet  you,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  are  well  acquainted  with 
the  doctrine  of  probable  opinions  of  the  Society  of  Jesus ;  and  surely 
the  opinion  of  so  great  a  casuist  as  Paley,  would  justify,  on  that  prin- 
ciple, any  act  he  might  sanction. 


CONGRATULATORV      KPISTLE. 


59 


I  have  dwelt  on  this  first  case  more  at  large,  because  it  best  illus- 
trates the  episcopal  and  the  vulgar  view  of  moral  duties,  touching  the 
things  of  this  world  in  their  relation  to  the  things  of  the  next.  In  point 
of  value,  the  relation  is — that  of  an  infinite  to  a  finite — in  other  words, 
no  relation  at  all.  The  laws  of  property  are  suspended  before  the 
infinite  purposes  of  Christian  education  ;  and  it  is  folly  to  quote  to 
a  Bishop  on  fire  with  such  an  idea,  the  maxim  of  St.  Paul  intended 
for  the  laity,  Ye  shall  not  do  evil  that  good  'may  come. 

The  confession  proceeds : 

"  In  this  state  of  things,  being  entirely  left  alone,  and  without  ad- 
vice, every  step  which  he  took  involved  him  more  and  more  deeply 
in  pecuniary  embarrassments." 

This  I  suppose  is  the  episcopal  view  of  the  seventeenth  specifica- 
tion. It  is  a  statement  of  the  progress  of  events,  but  not  a  confession 
that  that  course  of  events  was  sinful  in  him,  a  Bishop ;  and  you,  Right 
Rev.  Fathers,  have  ratified  this  also,  as  the  episcopal  rule  of  morals. 

Similar  conduct  in  a  layman  would  have  been  met  in  the  civil 
tribunals  with  short  and  sharp,  and  practical  questions.  If  alone,  why 
not  seek  aid?  If  without  advice,  why  not  ask  it  1  If  already  embar- 
rassed, why  not  stop  ?  If  every  step  involved  him  more  and  more 
deeply,  why  take  any  more  steps  ?  Pecuniary  embarrassment  is  an 
ecclesiastical  circumlocution  for  getting  money  you  are  unable  to  pay. 
Every  step  then  in  a  layman  was  a  new  sin.  It  was  adding  to  obliga- 
tions already  beyond  the  party's  means.  It  was  dishonestly  taking 
your  neighbor's  bread,  and  throwing  it  to  the  dogs.  It  was  with  this 
erroneous  view  that  the  seventeenth  specification  was  written. 

We  now  know  that  every  additional  step  did  not  involve  addi- 
tional sin  in  a  Bishop,  who  was  stepping  over  the  ruins  of  the  worldly 
fortunes  of  other  men,  with  his  eyed  fixed  on  the  elevated  object  of 
Christian  education,  with  a  chance  of  pecuniary  benefit  to  himself  and 
none  to  any  one  else.  He  meant  to  pay  these  debts  if  he  were  able  ; 
and  that  intent  relieved  the  Bishop  from  the  responsibility  for  an  im- 
morality to  which  a  layman  would  have  been  liable,  for  he  is  respon- 
sible not  merely  for  his  intents,  but  for  the  possihility  of  performing 
them.  The  Bishop  had  no  sort  of  rational  inosipect  of  repaying  the 
money  borrowed  and  debts  contracted ;  but  because  a  Bishop,  his 
prospective  intention  to  pay,  if  ever  he  could,  purges  the  crime  of 
contracting  debts,  when  it  was  certain  that  he  had  not  then,  and  not 
only  not  certain,  but  only  remotely  possible  that  by  begging  he  might 
have  the  means  at  some  indefinite  point  in  the  future.  Hence,  though 
a  layman  is  dishonest  if  he  borrow  beyond  his  present  means,  a  Bishop 
may  borrow  upon  a  possibility  without  immorality,  jsrovic/ecf  he  intend 
to  pay,  if  the  'possibility  turn  into  ^fact !  ! 


60  COKGRATULATORT      EPISTLE. 

"  In  endeavoring  to  extricate  himself  from  these  embarrassments, 
he  admits  that  he  made  representations  at  the  time,  he  believed  to  be 
correct,  but  many  of  which  turned  out  in  the  event  to  be  erroneous." 

We  are  perplexed  by  the  generosity  of  this  confession,  in  pointing 
it  to  its  specification.  It,  hovv-ever,  probably  relates  to  the  represen- 
tations touching  his  means  and  prospects  of  repaying  the  enormous 
sums  mentioned  in  the  seventeenth  specification.  It  is  open  to  the 
observations  already  made  on  that  specification  from  the  episcopal 
point  of  view. 

It  more  properly  is  pointed  at  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  fifteenth  spe- 
cifications. It  establishes,  by  the  judgment  of  the  Court,  that  it  is 
moral  in  a  Bishop  to  make  representations  which  he  does  not  know 
to  be  true,  and  which  he  does  not  know  his  ability  to  make  good, 
provided  he  have  an  internal  belief  of  their  truth.  He  is  not  respon- 
sible for  the  sufticiency  of  the  foundations  of  that  belief,  for  the  exist- 
ence of  the  belief,  however  unfounded  or  careless,  however  easy  and 
open  the  means  of  correction,  it  may  be,  destroys  the  intent  to  deceive. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  the  fifteenth  specification,  if  he  believed  the  land 
olfered  to  Mrs.  Roberdit  to  be  worth  six  thousand  dollars,  he  was  jus- 
tified in  so  representing  to  her,  though  for  the  purpose  in  question  it 
was  not  worth,  by  reason  of  the  mortgage,  which  was  not  disclosed, 
more  than  three  thousand  five  hundred.  It  is  plain  that  Bishops,  in 
dealing  with  business  men  on  these  principles,  possess  a  great  advan- 
tage, which  they  will  of  course.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  always  be  care- 
ful to  wield  to  purposes  as  elevated  and  pure  as  christian  education. 

Does  it  likewise  cover  the  checks  so  repeatedly  drawn  on  no 
funds  ?  We  then  understand  the  very  advantageous  terms  of  episco- 
pal credit  on  a  pinch  in  Bank.  On  those  terms  the  "  nolo  episcopare  " 
would  be  rare  among  the  sharpers  of  Wall-street.  But  of  course  so  deli- 
cate a  privilege  is  not  contemplated  ever  to  be  vested  in  such  hands ; 
and  any  who  should  offer  money  to  you.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  for  an 
impartation  of  such  special  powers  for  purposes  of  secular  gain,  would 
be  fitly  met  with  the  apostolical  rebuke  to  Simon  Magus. 

"  He  was  also  led  by  his  too  confident  reliance  on  anticipated  aid, 
to  make  promises  which  he  fully  expected  to  perform ;  but  which  ex- 
perience has  taught  him  were  far  too  strongly  expressed," 

This  clause  of  the  confession  is  supposed.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  to 
express  the  episcopal  view  of  the  various  allegations  of  fact  which  in 
a  layman  would  have  been,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  obtaining  money 
under  ftxlse  pretenses,  cheating  and  swindling. 

The  expectation  of  being  able  to  perform  the  various  promises  un- 
der which  he  obtained  the  various  notes,  securities,  and  indulgences, 


CONGRATULATORY      EPI8TLB.  61 

which  he  is  alleged  to  have  abused  and  perverted,  proves  in  a  Bishop 
that  the  subsequent  misapplication  of  the  securities  was  not  criminal. 
Such  expectation  is  inconsistent  with  an  intent  to  cheat.  It  is  an  intent 
to  do  what  the  party  has  promised  to  do.  When  afterwards  finding 
some  aid,  anticipated,  but  not  promised,  to  fail,  he  applies  the  secu- 
rities to  a  different  purpose,  it  is  with  an  intention  to  restore  them, 
not  ultimately  to  cheat  the  party  out  of  them.  This,  in  the  eye  of 
episcopal  morals,  is  no  crime.  It  lacks  the  essential  ingredient — in- 
tent to  commit  a  crime.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  done  with  the  best 
of  intents — the  intent  to  restore  the  note  or  security,  or  to  save  the 
person  harmless.  It  is  true,  this  is  not  the  purpose  to  which  he  has 
promised  to  apply  and  confine  the  security  or  the  note.  But  as  to 
those  promises,  "  experience  has  taught  him  they  were  far  too  strongly 
expressed."  Thus  a  question  of  morals  is  resolved  into  one  of  dyna- 
mics. The  Bishop  is  at  liberty  to  procure  securities  for  one  purpose 
and  to  promise  so  to  apply  them ;  but  if  he  do  not,  but  finds  the  failure 
of  anticipated  aid  requires  him  to  apply  them  to  some  other  purpose, 
the  doing  so  proves  no  criminal  intent,  but  simply  that  his  promise  to 
apply  them  to  another  purpose  was  "  far  too  strongly  expressed." 
It  is  surely  incumbent  on  men,  dealing  with  Bishops  enjoying  such 
license,  to  look  well  to  the  strength  of  the  language  they  use  when 
procuring  notes  or  papers  for  special  purposes. 

This  part  of  the  confession  gives  us  the  episcopal  key  to  the  3d, 
4th,  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  and  other  of  the  specifications,  having  the  ug- 
liest aspect  in  the  eye  of  the  criminal  law ;  but  which  this  interpreta- 
tion entirely  relieves  from  their  unpleasant  aspect.  From  a  crime  it 
is  alleviated  into  an  innocent  miscalculation  of  the  strength  and  ability 
of  the  party  to  resist,  under  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  the  tempta- 
tion to  do  it. 

Thus,  when  Bishop  Doane  procured  the  notes  from  Hays  for  re- 
newal, he  meant  so  to  apply  them.  He  found,  other  anticipated  aid 
failing,  he  needed  those  notes  for  discount  to  procure  new  funds,  and 
he  could  not  spare  them  for  renewal ;  he,  therefore,  discounted  them, 
obtained  new  loans  on  them,  doubled  Hays'  responsibility  for  him, 
without  his  consent  and  knowledge,  and  against  his  will,  but  with  the 
intent.,  if  he  were  able,  to  protect  him  from  loss.  The  notes  are  finally 
protested,  and  Hays  has  to  pay  both  notes.  This  in  a  Bishop  is  not 
swindling.  It  is  only  a  case  where  he  has  been  "  led  by  too  confident 
reliance  on  anticipated  aid,  to  make  promises  which  he  fully  expected 
to  perform  ;  but  which  experience  has  taught  him  xvere  far  too  strongly 
expressed.'''' 

In  a  layman,  so  differently  are  the  same  acts  viewed,  it  would  be 


62  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

said  not  that  the  promise  had  been  too  strongly  expressed,  but  that 
it  had  been  criminally  violated.  The  intent  to  secm-e  or  save  harm- 
less the  party  deceived,  and  trusting  to  the  violated  promise,  would 
not  be  received  even  in  extenuation  or  alleviation  of  the  guilt.  No 
stress  of  circumstances  is  held  to  justify  or  excuse  a  felony.  The  in- 
tent to  save  a  party  from  ultimate  loss  by  the  act,  does  not  change 
the  character  of  the  act.  That  is  the  civil  law  of  the  State,  even 
touching  clergymen  ;  such  is  the  case  of  Dr.  Dodd.  The  party  in- 
tends to  do  the  act  in  violation  of  the  promise  professed,  and  that  is 
the  crime  in  the  law.  The  Bishop  has  the  greater  law  of  liberty  for 
his  guidance.  He  may  do  and  intend  all  that  for  which  the  layman 
goes  to  the  penitentiary ;  but  unless  he  further  intends  never  to  save 
the  cheated  party  harmless  in  the  end,  he  is  not  guilty  of  any  crime 
against  the  moral  code  of  Bishops. 

So  when  Bishop  Doane  procured  the  suspension  of  Hays'  order 
on  Boston,  on  his  promise  to  pay  it  himself,  his  failure  to  pay  it,  and 
also  his  own  assignment  of  the  funds  in  Boston  liable  to  it,  after  his 
own  failure,  was  not  immoral  nor  dishonest  in  him.  He  had  promised 
to  pay,  and  at  the  time  meant  to  pay.  He  afterAvards  found  he  need- 
ed as  well  the  money  he  was  to  have  had,  as  the  Boston  fund — from 
his  too  confident  reliance  on  anticipated  aid  ;  he,  therefore,  is  driven 
to  the  unfortunate  necessity  of  failing  to  pay  himself,  and  of  assigning 
the  Boston  fund,  because  experience  has  taught  him  his  promises 
"  were  far  too  strongly  expressed." 

Such,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  is  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  has 
made  you  free  ! !  Marvellously  indeed,  and  greatly  to  be  praised, 
is  the  benejit  of  clergy  !  ! 

The  confession  proceeds — 

"  He  was  also  induced,  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  money  to  meet 
his  necessities,  to  resort  to  methods  by  the  paj^ment  of  exorbitant 
rates  of  interest  on  loans,  which  he  did  not  suppose  were  in  contra- 
vention of  law,  and  which  common  usage  seemed  to  him  to  justify." 

This  points  to  the  25th  specification.  It  settles  that  in  the  view 
of  the  episcopal  morality,  a  Bishop  may  pursue  christian  education — 
so  priceless  is  the  blessing — on  Capital  borrowed  at  exorbitant  in- 
terest, when  unable  to  pay  by  any  human  means,  and  driven  to  pay, 
besides  the  value  of  the  money,  exorbitant  interest  by  way  of  insu- 
rance on  the  speculation.  Ignorance  of  the  law — unheard  of  in 
criminal  courts  as  protection  for  the  most  ignorant  layman — avails 
in  a  Bishop  to  exempt  him  from  any  sort  of  moral  turpitude.  In 
him  also,  dealing  with  usurers,  is  justified  by  common  nsage. 

It  is  one  of  the  peculiar  prerogatives  of  a  Bishop,  that,  while  he 


CONaKATULATOUr      Kl'ISTLE.  C3 

cannot  be  held  liable  for  a  crime  Ijy  common  usage,  he  may  yet  be 
protected  from  it  by  such  usage. 

"  He  also,  in  entire  confidence  in  his  ability  to  replace  them,  made 
use  of  certain  trust  funds  in  a  way  which  he  deeply  regrets,  and 
although  they  have  long  ]:)een  perfectly  secured,  does  not  now  jusitify." 

It  is  remarkable,  Kight  Rev.  Fathers,  that  the  confessor  some- 
times does  illegal  acts  with  the  same  professions  that  men,  not 
Bishops,  throw  over  them.  No  lawyer  has  ever  met  a  man  who 
committed  a  breach  of  trust  without  intending  to  replace  the  fund 
out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  speculation.  Neither  the  intention  to 
restore,  nor  the  regret  for  the  misapplication,  at  all  alters  the  offence 
in  a  layman.  In  a  Bishop  they  extract  the  guilt  and  reduce  it  to  a 
simple  error.  It  is  curious  that  the  respondent  should  have  enter- 
tained lower  notions  of  his  privileges  than  you,  his  judges.  He  docs 
not  noio  justify  his  own  conduct  touching  these  trust  funds.  Yet  you 
— so  profound  is  your  conception  of  episcopal  impeccability — pass 
over  his  own  confession  of  acts  which  he  does  not  venture  to  justify, 
pronounce  him  in  your  eyes  innocent,  and  bid  him  go  in  peace. 
You  could  not  even  tell  him  to  sin  no  more — for  that  would  justify 
his  judgment  of  his  conduct. 

He  then  confesses  his  illness,  which  was  '•  mainly  instrumental 
in  his  failure." 

We  are  delighted  to  learn  that  it  was  not  chiefly  attributable  to 
his  own  imprudences,  or  any  rash  speculations,  nor  to  the  exorbitant 
rates  of  usury  he  continually  paid.  If  it  do  not  relieve  his  creditors' 
sufferings,  it  must  greatly  console  his  own  mind  to  think  that  his  mis- 
fortune, which  fell  so  heavily  on  others,  was  no  fault  of  his ;  but  one 
of  the  inscrutable  judgments  of  God,  to  which  the  best  as  well  as  the 
worst  is  liable. 

"  The  perplexity  arising  from  this  failure,  with  the  protracted  in- 
firmity which  followed  his  sickness,  made  him  liable  to  many  errors 
and  mistakes,  which  might  easily  bear  the  appearance  of  intentional 
misrepresentation." 

He  does  not  here  confess  any  error  or  mistake,  but  only  the  lia- 
bility to  them.  It  is  presumed  that  prior  to  the  attack  his  episcopal 
Grace  had  exempted  him  from  such  liability,  since  nothing  but  a  man- 
ifest weakening  of  that  great  guard  could  have  occasioned  that 
liability  to  assume  the  shape  in  act,  o£  intentional  misrepresentations. 

Shall  we  ascribe  to  this  illness,  which  he  seems  to  insinuate  had 
fallen  chiefly  on  his  moral  faculty,  the  representations  on  which  Hays 
and  Deacon  were  induced  to  subscribe  to  the  $50,000  loan  ? 

He  proceeds — 


64  CONGKATULATORY     EPISTLB. 

"  In  conclusion  with  the  assignment  of  his  property,  he  set  his 
name,  under  oath,  to  an  inventory  of  his  goods,  and  also  to  a  list  of  his 
debts,  which  he  believed  to  be  correct ;  an  act,  which  he  grieves  to  find, 
has  given  rise  to  an  impression  in  the  minds  of  some  that  he  exhibited 
an  insensibility  to  the  awful  sanctions  of  the  oath  of  a  Christian  man. 
But  while  he  laments  the  impression^  he  declares  that  this  act  was 
done  under  legal  advice,  and  in  the  firm  conviction  of  its  correctness." 
This  refers  to  the  27th  and  28th  specifications. 
Some  ambiguity  obscures  the  precise  meaning  of  this  passage.  He 
confesses  having  sworn  to  a  list  of  his  property,  which  he  believed  to 
be  correct.     Surely  such  an  oath  could  give  no  foundation  for  the 
scandal  which  followed  it.     It  is  just  possible  that  here,  as  in  regard 
to  the  cost  of  his  plan  of  Christian  education,  the  grounds  of  the  be- 
lief, the  diligence  in  ascertaining  the  truth  of  his  belief,  are  treated  as 
matters  immaterial.     If  the  belief  existed,  no  matter  how  careless  the 
inquiry,  or  whether  any  inquiry  at  all  were  made  ;  if  he  believed  it  to 
be  correct,  he  was  justified  in  swearing  that  it  "  was  a  true  and  perfect 
inventory  of  all  his  real  and  personal  property,  together  with  the 
value  thereof,  as  near  as  he  can  ascertain  ;  and  that  it  is  a  true,  full, 
and  perfect  list  of  his  creditors,  with  the  amounts  severally  due  to 
them,  as  far  as  he  hath  been  able  to  ascertain,  according  to  the  best  of 
his  hnowledge.'''' 

Those  forms  of  affidavits  were  manifestly  drawn  for  laymen  by 
laymen,  who  swear  only  about  facts,  after  diligent  ^inquiry  according 
to  their  knowledge ;  not  for  Bishops  who  know  nothing  of  facts,  and 
deal  only  in  faith.  It  was  only  natural  that  they  should  judge  of  the 
oath  of  a  Christian  Bishop  by  rules  only  applicable  to  a  Christian 
man.  They  could  not  be  expected  to  be  cognizant  of  the  grave  dif 
ferences  between  the  two,  which  hitherto  had  never  been  the  subject 
of  legal  exposition,  nor  indeed  had  any  example  of  it  been  known 
to  occur.  It  is  one  of  the  many  cases  in  which  you  are  called  on  to 
bear  with  the  ignorance  of  the  laity  in  episcopal  morals.  It  is  how- 
ever, a  considerable  consolation  to  know,  that  after  your  luminous 
exposition  of  the  immunities  of  Bishops  in  the  matter  of  judicial  oaths, 
such  oaths  will  create  no  impression  in  their  minds  of  any  insensi- 
bility to  those  awful  sanctions.  So  clear  has  been  your  exculpation 
of  the  act,  that  you  will  hereafter  be  spared  the  humiliation  of  one  of 
your  order,  invoking  the  "  legal  advice  "  of  a  layman  to  extenuate  the 
perjury  of  a  Bishop's  oath. 

There  is  a  species  of  oath  which,  from  the  haste  required  by  the 
pressure  of  business,  and  the  discriminating  "  conviction  of  its  cor- 
rectness" with  which  it  is  taken,  has  acquired  a  proverbial  reputation 


CONGRATULATORY      EPI8TLB.  C5 

under  the  name  of  "  the  cuslonn  house  oath."  The  "  legal  alvice  "  pro- 
bably pi'oceedcd  from  one  conversant  with  that  department  of  prac- 
tic — whence  alone  in  civil  proceedings  could  he  have  drawn  tho 
happy  analogy  which  your  decision  has  now  forever  consecrated  as 
the  "  Bishop's  oath."  Henceforth  the  two  will  stand  together  as  twin 
relations  of  the  "  awful  sanctions  of  the  oath  of  a  Christian  man  j" 
and  so  soon  as  it  becomes  to  be  understood  that  they  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  true  without  many  grains  of  allowance,  the  guilt  of  perjury 
will  entirely  vanis;h  in  the  recognised  rate  of  legalized  alloy. 

Yet  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  we  are  bewildered  by  a  double  confes- 
sion and  an  ambiguous  constructiorf. 

If  the  confessor  meant  that  the  "  legal  advice  "  convinced  him  of 
the  correctness  of  swearing  to  the  truth  of  the  list  of  debts,  knowing 
that  some  debts  loere  excluded,  we  are  relieved  of  all  difficulty  in  re- 
conciling the  two  confessions ;  and  your  decision  on  Bit^hops'  oaths 
acquires  a  new  significancy. 

But  if  he  mean  that  he  took  the  oath  with  the  belief  that  all  his 
debts  were  in  the  schedule,  then  we  feel  embarrassed  touching  tho 
episcopal  fund. 

The  confessor  in  his  "  protest  and  appeal,"  informs  us : 

"  It  has  been  stated  under  the  foregoing  specification  how  the  list 
of  creditors  was  made  out,  and  under  what  disadvantages.  The  matter 
of  the  episcopal  fund  was  not  regarded  as  an  ordinary  debt:  and  the 
purpose,  from  the  first,  was  entertaiticd  to  provide  for  it  distinctly." 

This  seems  to  the  unaided  reason  of  plain  men  to  exclude  the 
possibility  that  the  list  was  either  supposed  or  intended  to  "  be  cor. 
rect "  in  its  enumeration  of  his  debts.  The  episcopal  fund  was  not 
forgotten,  but  it  was  "  not  regarded  as  an  ordinary  debt."  He  there- 
fore was  contemplating  its  nature.  And  "  the  2n(rpose  from  the  first 
was  entertained  to  provide  for  it  distinctly." 

Being  thus  not  an  ordinary  debt,  the  purpose  was  entertained  to 
provide  for  it  distinctly  from  the  ordinary  debts.  It  v,-as  therefore 
left  out  of  the  list,  not  from  forgetfulness,  but  on  "  purpose  ;" — a  pur- 
pose "  entertained  "  from  the  first,  and  therefore  a  deliberate  purpose. 

This  fact.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  the  eye  of  flesh  can  know  only 
from  the  protest  and  appeal.  You  knew  it  by  that  apostolic  intuition 
which  revealed  to  Peter  the  pious  fraud  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira. 

The  crime  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  was  retaining  part  of  the  price 
of  the  land,  while  pretending  to  dedicate  the  whole  to  the  service  of 
God,  The  second  specification  imputed  to  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
such  a  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  charged  him  with  disguising  the 
pursuit  of  filthy  lucre  under  the  pretext  of  a  venture  for  christian 
education,  5 


fit)  CONGRATULATORY      KPISTLE. 

The  contrast  of  your  judgment  with  his  on  the  moral  quality  of 
such  acts  illustrates,  with  singular  aptness,  the  great  distinction  be- 
tween vulgar  and  episcopal  morality.  The  layman  for  such  a  decep- 
tion was  chastened  by  the  heaviest  scourge  of  God  at  the  hands  of 
his  Apostle.  The  Bishop  for  such  a  suppression  of  truth  and  sugges- 
tion of  falsehood,  is  bidden  to  go  without  day,  in  peace,  by  the  suc- 
cessors of  that  apostle — the  heritors  of  his  spiritual  endowments. 

Had  you  considered  that  the  same  rule  of  morals  measured  the 
conduct  of  Bishops  and  laymen,  then  your  discharge  of  the  Bishop, 
where  Peter  punished  the  layman,  would  be  a  grave  reflection  on  his 
justice.  It  would  look  like  an  appeal  from  the  servant  to  the  mas- 
ter. It  would  involve  a  reference  to  that  occasion  where  the  servant 
invoked  fire  on  the  head  of  his  master's  enemies — and  met  his  rebuke, 
that  he  knew  not  what  manner  of  spirit  he  was  of. 

This  you,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  are  too  reverent  to  venture  towards 
that  apostle.  The  difference  of  your  judgment,  under  the  same  in- 
spiration, results  from  the  different  persons  before  your  tribunal  and 
his.  You  rightly  absolve  the  Bishop,  by  the  benefit  of  clergy^  for  an 
act  which  the  less  fortunate  layman  had  to  suffer  for  at  the  hands  of 
the  Apostle. 

Indeed,  it  is  clear  that  you  did  not  design  to  overrule  that  early  and 
leading  case  of  episcopal  procedure.  On  the  contrary,  throughout  the 
proceeding,  you  have  been  careful  to  pursue  the  precedent,  and  emu- 
lous of  its  loftiest  prerogatives. 

The  proceeding  there  w^as  unembarrassed  by  presentments  or 
pleas,  or  writings,  or  evidence,  or  coiuisel,  or  canons.  The  Apostle 
was  judge  and  prosecutor,  his  intention  was  witness,  and  the  half  con- 
fession, at  once  the  crime  and  the  condemnation. 

A  due  consideration  of  this  case,  and  of  the  fact  that  you  are  the 
successors,  in  matter  of  discipline,  of  the  judge  who  made  that  pre- 
cedent, would  have  relieved  much  of  the  perplexity  occasioned  to  the 
laity  by  your  manifest  prescience  of  the  purity  and  uprightness  of  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  prior  to  the  proofs  of  the  paucity  and  frailty 
of  the  witnesses  of  the  Presenters,  whom  you  had  never  seen ;  of 
the  inadequacy  of  their  proof,  which  you  had  never  heard  ;  of  the 
certainty  that  a  slight  censure  was  the  heaviest  possible  punishment 
you  could  be  induced  to  inflict  by  their  evidence  ;  of  the  strong  pro- 
bability, almost  amounting  to  certainty,  that  you  would  acquit  him  en- 
tirely ;  of  the  honesty  and  impartiality  of  the  committee  of  purgation 
of  New  Jersey,  in  the  purgation  at  which  you  were  not  present.  And 
the  same  intuition  assured  you  of  the  confinement  of  the  power  of 
three  Bishops  to  present  to  the  cases  of  heresy  only  in  the  entire 


CONGRATULATORY      EFISTLK.  07 

silence  of  the  law.  Indeed  this  intuitional  inspiration  was  manifested 
in  a  yet  more  singular  manner.  Not  only  did  you  give  no  credence 
to  the  reiterated  statement  of  the  Presenters,  that  they  were  ready  to 
prove  the  charges,  which  you  intuilively  knew  could  not  be  proved  ; 
but,  the  Bishop  of  New- York  divined,  prior  to  the  evidence,  not  only 
how  he  should  vote,  but  also  how  the  Bishop  of  Massachusetts  would 
vote ;  and  so  confident  was  he  in  the  correctness  of  his  intuition,  that 
he  made  it  the  basis  of  a  proposal  to  pair  off.  It  would  seem  how- 
ever as  if  this  faculty  is  not  equally  luminous  in  all  episcopal  minds, 
for  the  Bishop  of  Massachusetts  declined,  on  the  ground  that  he  did 
not  know  how  he  should  vote  till  he  had  heard  the  evidence. 

You  were  careful  also  to  make  this  early  precedent  the  only  rule 
of  your  proceeding.  As  in  that  case  the  Apostle,  so  you  in  this,  held 
yourselves  bound  by  no  canons,  no  laws,  no  rules.  You  knew  your 
power  to  proceed,  from  your  own  internal  fountain  of  power.  You 
proceeded  as  to  you  seemed  good,  and  were  quite  as  regardless  of 
forms  prescribed,  as  was  Peter  before  they  had  been  dreamed  of 
The  result  was  different — but  any  result  was  in  your  discretion ;  and 
the  difference  of  the  persons  more  than  justified  it. 

Thus  you  have,  by  this  great  judgment,  reversed  the  precedents  of 
centuries,  not  wantonly,  but  only  that  you  might  go  to  the  feet  of 
the  Apostles,  whence  your  power  flows,  and  wield  it  under  the  inspi- 
ration which  presided  at  its  first  exemplification.  Your  bitterest 
opponents  can  appeal  to  no  more  primitive  and  apostolical  antiquity. 

The  residue  of  this  important  paper  may  be  disposed  of  in  few 
words,  so  far  as  it  is  of  public  and  not  merely  personal  interest. 

The  good  people,  who  were  somewhat  shocked  at  the  language  of 
the  Protest  and  Appeal,  will  be  relieved  to  learn  that  "  penned  un- 
der the  strong  excitement  of  the  moment,"  there  are  parts  of  it 
which  he  does  not  now  justify.  It  would  be  more  satisfiictory  to 
know  the  precise  passages  covered  by  this  concession,  and  whether 
his  conscience,  charging  him  with  error  touching  his  brethren,  the 
three  Bishops,  is  silent  touching  the  language  used  in  reference  to  the 
"four  laymen."  It  would  throw  light  on  the  structure  and  workings 
of  the  episcopal  conscience. 

It  is,  in  view  of  the  mode  of  their  creation,  of  some  moment  to 
have  an  express  acknowledgment  from  a  Bishop,  of  his  intention  to 
pay  his  debts  contracted  for  the  cause  of  Christian  education — a  cause 
which,  having  suspended  the  ordinary  rules  of  honesty  and  plain 
dealing  among  men  of  the  world,  might  with  more  consistency  per- 
haps have  been  made  effectual  to  the  entire  obliteration  of  all  respon- 
sibility on  that  account.     It  savors,  however,  a  little  of  episcopal  mo« 


68  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

rah,  that  ^^  an  enterprise,^'' has  been  undertaken  for  the  discharge  of 
the  mortgage  debt  by  a  sort  of  forced  loan  or  benevolence.  This 
would  seem  to  shift,  not  to  extinguish,  the  Bishop's  responsibilities, 
and  savors  a  little  of  robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul,  to  lay  eyes. 

It  is  of  more  public  importance,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  the  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey  confesses,  "  that  in  the  course  of  all  these  transactions, 
human  infirmity  may  have  led  him  into  many  errors,"  but  while  ad- 
mitting the  possibility,  he  is  careful,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  not  to  impli- 
cate your  order  by  confessing  any  fact. 

"If  scandal  to  the  Church,  or  injury  to  the  cause  of  Christ  have 
arisen  from  them,"  (i.  e.  those  errors  admitted  to  be  possible,  but  not 
to  have  been  committed)  "  they  are  occasion  to  him  of  mortification 
and  regret."  i.  e.  hypothetically — not  that  he  has  ever  actually /c/^ 
those  feelings. 

"  For  these  things,  in  all  humility  and  sorrow,  before  God  and 
man,  he  has  always  felt  himself  liable  to  and  willing  to  receive  the 
friendly  reproofs  of  his  brethren  in  Christ  Jesus,"  (excepting  of  course, 
the  obnoxious  '  four  laymen,')  "  and  especially  of  the  Bishops  of  this 
Church,"  (excepting  the  three  Presenters  by  their  letter.) 

You  see,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  he  is  careful  to  the  last  never 
to  compromise  the  independence  of  his  order  and  yours.  He  never 
for  a  moment  contemplates  your  right  to  try  him.  He  contemplates 
responsibility  to  no  compulsory  and  xinfriendly  forum. 

This  confession  is  quite  as  remarkable  in  what  it  omits  as  in  what 
it  contains. 

The  Bishop's  conscience  does  not  charge  him  with  having  sinned 
in  signing  Mr.  Binney's  name  without  his  authority ;  and  your  judg- 
ment in  dismissing  the  j)resentment,  establishes  your  concurrence,  in 
his  opinion,  that  such  an  act  in  a  Bishop  could  not  be  sinful. 

The  Bishop  omits  all  allusion  to  the  specification  concerning  sump- 
tuous living,  and  the  undue  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  ;  but  apparently 
you  considered  the  former  as  merely  the  episcopal  interpretation  of 
the  order,  to  be  "  given  to  hospitality." 

The  omission  of  the  latter  from  the  confession  is  probably  justified 
by  the  practical  confession  in  the  face  of  the  court.  It  was  disposed 
of  by  a  form  of  trial  rarely  now  vised,  but  still  allowable  in  the  civil 
courts — the  trial  by  inspection — which  of  course  being  only  an  im- 
pression on  the  senses  of  the  Judge,  cannot  get  on  the  record. 

This  also  you  considered  venial,  and  passed  without  punishment, 
as  another  of  the  benefits  of  clergy. 

It  was  fitly  omitted  from  an  instrument  which  was  a  confession 
of  innocence. 


CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE.  69 

Upon  that  confession  it  was  fit  that  you  should  order  that  the  pre- 
sentment be  dismissed,  as  containing  nothing  worthy  of  trial,  and  the 
accused  go  free,  without  a  day  of  account. 

The  various  grounds  in  the  recital  given  for  the  decree,  might, 
before  a  lay  political  body,  suggest  that  a  result  had  been  obtained 
by  uniting  several  reasons  for  the  dismission,  no  one  of  which  could 
secure  a  majority  of  the  body,  but  the  several  powers  of  each  united 
could  attain  the  common  olgect.  But  before  your  august  tribunal 
such  a  supposition  is  inadmissible.  The  word  therefore  in  your  decree 
binds  each  Bishop  to  an  affirmance  of  every  ground  assigned  for  the 
decree. 

You  have  therefore  unanimously  established  that  none  of  the  acts 
charged  to  have  been  done  by  the  accused  are,  taken  with  the  confes- 
sion, immoral  or  criminal  in  a  Bishop. 

His  character  of  Bishop  therefore  exempts  the  accused  from  the 
imputation  which  would,  by  the  civil  law,  lie  against  a  layman  who 
should  do  the  like. 

This  decision.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  you  cannot  fail  to  perceive, 
gives  you  great  advantages  over  men  of  the  world  in  transacting 
worldly  business,  which,  however,  you  will  be  careful  never  to  per- 
vert from  pious  to  proflme  uses.  But  for  those  pious  purposes  you 
may  make  the  most  solemn  representations,  and  yet  blamelessly  find, 
when  you  break  them,  that  you  "  expressed  yourself  for  too  strongly." 
You  can  pledge  an  oath  on  "  legal  advice,"  and  swear  to  a  fact  upon 
belief,  without  inquiry.  By  simply  intending  not  to  cheat,  you  can 
cheat  with  moral  propriety.  By  intending  to  save  the  party  harm- 
less, you  can  misapply  securities  procured  for  renewal,  so  as  to  create 
additional  responsibility.  By  intending  to  replace  trust  funds,  you 
can,  with  moral  propriety,  violate  the  orders  of  the  law,  and  for  your 
own  benefit  jeopard  them,  without  the  consent  of  the  owners.  You 
can  speculate  in  Christian  education,  without  being  at  all  responsible 
for  your  calculations,  for  prudence  in  plan,  moderation  in  view, 
reason  in  your  expenditures,  or  economy  in  your  conduct.  You  can 
deal  without  contamination  with  usurers  for  this  holy  object,  and  rush 
headlong,  blindly,  with  your  speculation,  into  certain  bankruptcy. 
You  can  contract  debts  and  borrow  money  when  utterly  insolvent, 
to  an  amount  utterly  beyond  your  means  of  payment,  provided  you 
mean  to  pay  whenever  you  are  able,  or  if  your  scheme  succeed.  You 
may  offer  land,  as  security,  at  its  fee  simple  value,  without  disclosing 
mortgages  previously  binding  it.  You  may,  on  inadequate  security, 
procure  subscriptions  to  relieve  yourself  from  debt,  on  promise  to 
apply  it  to  liquidate  debts  of  the  subscribers,  and  then  apply  the 
money  to  other  purposes. 


70  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

These  are  some  of  the  things  you  have  said,  Eight  Rev.  Fathers, 
are  right  in  a  Bishop.  This  benefit  of  clergy  is  great  in  the  transac- 
tion of  worldly  business — with  men  whose  hands,  and  tongues,  and 
oaths,  and  consciences,  are  bound  and  hampered  by  the  rules  of  vul- 
gar morality.  For  the  cause  of  religion,  for  the  promotion  of  Chris- 
tian education,  for  the  building  of  churches  and  endowing  of  parishes, 
for  all  pious  uses,  these  immunities  give  you  facilities  almost  incalcu- 
lable. They  have  already  acquired  enough  notoriety  to  get  a  name 
by  reputation.  In  laymen  they  would  be  frauds.  In  Bishops  they 
acquire,  from  the  person  and  the  object,  the  quality  of  pious.  The 
world  blends  the  two  qualities,  and  demonstrates  them  "  pious 
frauds."  Their  entire  innocence  in  episcopal  personages  is  amply  at- 
tested by  their  great  prevalence  in  former  times.  Some  of  them 
seem  forbidden  by  language  of  some  strength  in  the  Scriptures.  But 
the  usage  of  ages,  and  the  tradition  of  the  early  church,  that  such 
things  have  been  more  or  less  practiced,  must  be  allowed  to  control 
what  might  otherwise  seem  the  better  interpretation.  They  are  fully 
covered  by  the  rule  Quod  semper,  quod  ttbique,  quod  ab  omnibus, 
from  the  days  of  Callistus  down  ;  and  you  have  covered  them  from 
the  sneers  of  the  world  by  the  broad  shield  of  your  unanimous  judg- 
ment. 

Henceforth  no  man  will  be  so  rash  as  to  impeach  their  purity  ; 
and  you  will  be  left  to  pursue  your  expanded  schemes  of  Christian 
education,  propagation  and  regeneration,  with  all  the  freedom  of  this 
great  license.  If,  thus  endowed,  the  land  be  not  studded  with  pious 
monuments  of  your  zeal,  you  will  prove  singularly  neglectful  of  your 
rich  and  exhaustless  privileges.  If  ruin  accidentally  befall  those  on 
whose  credulity  you  have  for  such  pious  objects  drawn,  a  committee 
will  easily  be  found  to  "undertake  an  enterprise "  for  their  relief ; 
and  should  they  fail,  you  can  teach  them  piously  to  regard  it  as 
money  found  in  one  part  of  God's  vineyard  and  transferred  by  his 
vine-dresser  into  another  part  of  his  vineyard.  If  it  bear  not  fruit 
here,  it  is  treasure  laid  up  in  heaven,  where  moths  and  rust  do  not 
corrupt,  and  Bishops  do  not  break  through  and  fail. 

It  is  not  supposed  however.  Eight  Rev.  Fathers,  that  this  rule  of 
episcopal  morals  is  intended  for  every  day  application  in  the  private 
and  personal  concerns  of  all  of  you.  There  are  many  of  you,  who 
in  such  cases  will,  ex  gratia,  condescend  to  conform  to  the  vulgar  rule. 
It  is  chiefly  in  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  matters  that  the  more  libe- 
ral rule  of  episcopal  morals  is  indulged ;  and  it  was  the  fear,  you 
might  in  them  be  too  much  restrained  by  the  puritanical  notions  of 
the  vulgar,  that  induced  you  so  strenuously  to  vindicate  this  great 


CONGRATULATORT     EPISTLE.  71 

immunity  of  your  order.  It  may,  if  hereafter  needful,  bo  applied  to 
mere  personal  and  private  transactions,  for  which  this  case  has  paved 
the  w^ay,  under  cover  of  more  public  considerations. 

Such  is  your  moral  position — your  legal  position  is  equally  grand 
and  imposing. 

By  your  judgment  the  whole  august  fabric  of  Constitution  and 
Canons,  reared  by  the  wisdom  of  generations,  fondly  adored  as  the 
inviolable  sanctuary  of  religious  freedom,  has  been  prostrated.  It 
seemed  solid  as  the  Rock  of  Ages — you  have  shown  it  to  be  a  castle 
of  cards  before  your  breath. 

Yet,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  allow  me  to  beseech  you,  not  hastily 
nor  rashly  to  follow  up  your  decision  by  formally  and  openly  an- 
nulling those  Constitutions  and  Canons.  Do  not  now  repeal  them  by 
authentic  acts.  Still  allow  them  to  stand  as  convenient  screens 
between  you  and  the  fanatical  multitude.  Their  existence  imposes 
no  restraint  on  your  power,  no  limit  on  your  authority.  When  con- 
venient, you  can  act  according  to  them — when  necessary,  you  can, 
under  any  plausible  pretext,  disregard  them.  You  are  now  engaged 
with  all  apparent  earnestness  in  debating,  passing,  repealing,  op- 
posing, or  modifying  Canons.  You  know,  it  is  all  a  futile  work — 
since  the  result  can  neither  add,  nor  take  from,  nor  direct  your  dis- 
cretion. Yet  you  go  through  this  cumbersome  form  for  the  safety 
and  security  of  the  Church,  against  the  outbreak  of  fierce  passions, 
which  an  explicit  declaration  of  your  real  power  would  occasion.  I 
pray  you,  continue  this  wise  disguise  till  you  have  gradually  instill- 
ed your  principles  of  episcopal  prerogatives  and  morals  into  the 
rising  generation,  accustomed  them  to  the  exercise  of  arbitrary  acts 
under  spacious  but  hollow  pretexts  ;  accomplish  what  you  can  from 
time  to  time  by  ^relaxing  legislation,  concentrate  in  your  hands  as 
much  of  mere  discretionary  authority  as  you  may  be  able  to  secure, 
till  finally  you  may  procure  a  lex  regia,  such  as  transferred  to  the 
Roman  Emperor  all  the  power  of  the  Roman  people,  and  vested 
him  with  a  legal  right  to  repeal  and  enact  laws  at  his  pleasure. 

In  this  way.  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  you  can  attain  your  end  gradu- 
ally, slowly,  but  effectually  and  peacefully— and  soon  enough  for  a 
power  which  is  as  perpetual  as  the  foundations  of  the  world,  and  which 
nothing  can  shake  but  the  last  trump. 

But  now,  in  this  day,  and  in  this  country,  at  once  and  openly  to 
abrogate  all  the  constitutions  and  canons  to  which  the  people  are 
superstitiously  attached,  would  lead  to  grave  disorders,  and  bring  do-\vn 
on  your  Holy  Order  the  execration  and  the  might  of  an  outraged  and 
furious  people. 


72  CONGRATULATORY     EPISTLE. 

Tliey  are  already  half  convinced  that  your  Holy  order  cannot  be 
entrusted  "with  the  administration  of  discipline  over  its  members;  and 
they  are  fast  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  a  court  of  laymen  is  the 
only  one  likely  to  hold  you  to  the  strict  rule  of  vulgar  morality. 
Any  step  to  throw  additional  obstacles  in  the  -way  of  your  trial — as 
by  the  proposed  canon — will  be  regarded  by  them  as  suspicious,  and 
may  tempt  them  at  once  to  that  disastrous  step.  And  more  decided 
advances  in  the  direction  you  have  taken  might  madden  them  to  work 
your  overthrow.  Be  therefore  wise  as  serpents,  by  seeming  to  be 
harmless  as  doves. 

I  turn  for  a  moment  from  the  public  to  the  more  private  results 
of  this  gi'eat  process. 

While  defending  the  towers  of  episcopacy  by  new  bulwarks,  and  lift- 
ing them  above  the  floods  of  popular  control,  you  have  vindicated  the 
personal  purity  of  a  persecuted  Bishop,  and  returned  him  in  peace  to 
the  arms  of  his  adoring  and  devoted  children.  The  diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  so  long  the  theatre  of  fierce  conflict,  will  now  sink  into  peace- 
ful repose.  The  four  laymen  who  drew  the  sword  to  impose  on  the 
neck  of  the  Bishops  the  yoke  of  vulgar  morals — a  yoke  which  neither 
he,  nor  his  predecessors  could  bear — have  been  signally  discomfited. 
They  have  been  flung  from  your  bar  prostate  and  covered  with  the 
ignomy  of  false  accusers,  and  overwhelmed  by  the  torrent  of  invec- 
tive of  the  Protest  and  Appeal  now  sanctioned  by  your  judgment. 
The  one  hundred  and  forty  recreant  members  of  the  church,  who  gave 
aid  and  comfort  to  the  intruding  Bishops,  have  met  the  fit  rebuke  of 
their  treason  ;  and  nothing  but  the  prudent  concealment  of  their  names 
withdraws  them  from  the  thunder  of  the  episcopal  anathema.  The 
crowd  of  the  discontented,  Avho  hung  on  the  skirts  of  the  assailants,  fear- 
ful to  join  the  attack,  yet  anxiovis  to  join  the  victorious  pursuit,  who 
envied  the  immunities  of  the  Bishop  and  longed  to  restrict  him  to 
the  measure  of  their  privileges,  have  been  silenced  for  ever.  The 
thousands  of  the  church,  of -low  latitudinarian  views  of  the  episcopacy, 
who  think  it  of  human  origin,  subject  to  human  infirmity  and  liable 
to  human  control,  who  measured  the  Bishop's  morals  by  the  strict 
standing  of  the  laity,  and  mourned  night  and  day  the  pollution  of  the 
sanctuary  by  his  presence,  who  shrank  profanely  from  his  communion 
table  and  restrained  their  children  from  seeking  confirmation  at  his 
hands,  who  looked  impiously  to  your  judgment  seat  as  their  refuge 
from  a  legitimate  ruler,  whom  they  regarded  as  a  tyrant,  and  refrained 
their  steps  from  foreign  and  unauthorised  communions  only  because 
they  trusted  your  judgment  would  relieve  them,  who  erroneously 
supposed  the  Bishop's  morals  and  life  a  fit  example  for  the  flock,  and 


CONGRATULATORY      KPISTLK.  73 

feared  their  children  might  make  his  conduct  the  excuse  for  imita- 
tion, these  unfortunate  and  erring  people,  convinced  by  your  judgment 
of  their  error,  and  cut  to  the  heart  by  the  memory  of  their  ungrateful 
persecution  of  their  spiritual  father,  will  now,  in  sack-cloth  and  ashes, 
with  tears  of  repentance,  acknowledge  their  sin  and  seek  his  forgive- 
ness. They  will  try  to  merit  oblivion  for  the  past,  by  obsequious 
submission  for  the  future,  and  to  obscure  all  traces  of  former  opposi- 
tion by  making  their  morals  conform  to  his  own. 

The  faithful  of  the  Episcopal  See  of  Burlington— among  the  faith- 
less faithful  only — transported  at  the  news  of  the  delivery  of  their 
Bishop  from  what  they  were  taught  to  consider  a  den  of  lions,  poured 
from  their  homes  to  the  quay  to  welcome  his  return.  The  colder  sa- 
lutation of  the  hand  was  changed  to  the  primitive  kiss  of  sisterly 
affection.  The  honorable  women — not  a  few — came  forth  to  do  him 
honor ;  and  the  young  men  and  maidens  streamed  with  chaplets  of 
flowers,  to  welcome  his  restoration.  The  shades  of  evening  closed 
over  the  blessed  scene,  only  to  be  dispelled  by  the  glare  of  bonfires 
and  illuminations,  and  the  desolate  home  of  affliction  was  alive  with 
the  voice  of  merriment  and  the  chaunt  of  exultation.  It  was  as  when 
Peter,  delivered  by  the  angel,  stood  before  the  door,  and  the  maiden 
opened  not  the  gate  for  gladness. 

This  venerable  Father  of  the  faithful  is  a  character  of  no  mean  or 
ordinary  mould.  He  is  cast  in  large  proportions,  of  heroic  stature, 
a  man  of  history,  after  the  fashion  of  the  great  Cardinal — though  less, 
according  to  the  diminished  stature  of  modern  times.  The  language 
of  prose  cannot  rise  to  his  elevation  ;  and  my  pen  fails  in  the  ambi- 
tious flight.     I  turn  thence  to 

What  the  lofty  tragedians  taught  in  chorus  or  iambic — teachers 
best  of  moral  prudence,  and  invoke  their  pencil  to  portray  him. 

This  Cardinal, 
Though  from  an  humble  stock,  undoubtedly 
Was  fashion'd  to  much  honor  from  his  cradle. 
He  was  a  scholar,  and  a  ripe  and  good  one ; 
Exceeding  wise,  fair  spoken  and  persuading : 
Lofty  and  sour  to  them  that  lov'd  him  not ; 
But,  to  those  men  that  sought  him,  sweet  as  summer : 
And  though  he  were  unsatisfied  in  getting, 
(Which  was  a  sin,)  yet,  in  bestowing,  madam, 
He  was  most  princely.     Ever  witness  for  him 
Those  twins  of  learning  that  lie  raised  in  you, 
Ipswich  and  Oxford.     Yet —  • 

He  was  a  man 
Of  an  unboxmded  stomach,  ever  ranking 


74  CONGRATULATORY      EPISTLE. 

Himself  with  princes ;  one  that  by  suggestion 
Tied  all  the  kingdom.     Simony  was  fair  play : 
His  own  opinion  was  his  law ;  i'  the  presence 
He  would  say  untruths,  and  be  ever  double, 
Both  in  his  words  and  meaning.     He  was  never 
But  where  he  meant  to  ruin  pitiful ; 
His  promises  were,  as  he  then  was,  mighty  ; 
But  his  performance  as  he  is  now,  nothing. 
Of  his  own  body  he  was  ill,  and  gave 
The  clergy  ill  example. 

In  the  humble  prayer,  Right  Rev.  Fathers,  that  meditating  on 
your  judgment,  ilkistrated  by  such  an  example  of  the  virtues  of  a 
Christian  Bishop,  stamped  with  the  seal  of  your  unanimous  approval, 
the  Church  may  derive  great  comfort  and  edification. 

I  remain, 

Right  Rev.  Fathers, 

Your  dutiful  Son,         X 

ULRIC  VON  HUTTEN. 

Feast  of  St.  Peter  of  Alcantara,  1853. 


X 


PHOTOMOUNT 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Manufactuttd  iit 
)6AYLORD  BROS.  In<. 
'         Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
•J  Stockton,  Calif. 


BX5960 .D63H8 

An  epistle  congratulatory  to  the  right 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00004  0479 


